Catherine R.

Agripa

Buddhism

“All we are is the result of what we have thought.

The mind is everything.
What we think we become.” – Buddha

I. Philosopher
 Founded by Siddhartha (He Who Achieves His Goal) Gautama (descendants of Gotama")
 563-483 BC.
 Suddhodana – Father
 Maya – Mother
 Yasodhara – Wife
 Rahula – son
 Buddha – “The Enlightened One”
II. Ethical Concept

 The four Noble Truth Professed by Buddhist

1. Pain and suffering exist
2. The need to satisfy man’s sensual desire is the cause of man’s suffering
3. Suffering ends only when man stop his sensual longings
4. The path that leads to the ending of suffering is called the “Eightfold Path”
 The Eightfold Path
1. Right Viewpoint, which is the proper understanding of the Noble Truths.
2. Right Aspiration, which must go beyond the self
3. Right Speech, which requires the use of the right words to show courtesy and respect for others.
4. Right Action, which is consistent with the basic law not to kill steal, lie, have illicit sexual
relations, and to take intoxicating drinks.
5. Right Livelihood, which is shown by not doing harm or pain to others.
6. Right Effort, which is maintaining a life property moving toward enlightenment
7. Right Concentration, by controlling emotion, imagination, illusion, and self-deception
8. Right Contemplation, by not giving unnecessary attention to anything that hinders the attainment
of enlightenment or true knowledge.
 Core Values of Buddhism
1) Non-violence
 2) Compassion
3) Freedom from rebirth
4) Humanism
 The one aspect of the message of Buddha which seems original is humanism. The insight that the human
beings are ultimately responsible for their fate and no supernatural forces, no magic rituals, and no gods
can be held accountable for our actions.
 Karma- the force created by a person’s action what is believe in Hinduism and Buddhism to determine
what that person next life would be like
 Samsara- the indefinitely repeated cycles of birth, misery and death cause by Karma
 Nirvana- the state of perfect happiness and peace in Buddhism where there is release from all form of
suffering

III. Bibliography

Buswell Jr., R. E., & Lopez Jr., D. (2003). The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism. New Jersey: Princeton
University Press.

Reynold, F. E. (2014, 08 08). Buddhism; Religion. Retrieved 10 12, 2017, from Encyclopedia Britanica:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Buddhism

David Hume (Moral Sentiments and Sympathy)

 Empiricist theory of mind

 Naturalistic Philosopher

Postulated that morality is based on sentiments rather on reason. Hume criticize reason:

1. Reason alone cannot be a motive to the will but rather is the slave of passion.
2. Moral distinction are derived from sentiments; feeling of approval and disapproval felt by spectators
who contemplates a character trait.
3. Virtues and vices.

David Hume published in his second book treatise; discussed that human role and will of action is based of
sentiments, since Hume is against on rationalism he rejected that reason is the basis of morality;

1. Moral rationalist tend to say what’s morally good is reason.

2. Discover good and evil by reasoning has virtue and vice.
Reason makes interferences neither set end nor motive to an action.

Moral Sentiments

1. Recognize morally good and evil by certain feeling; may felt contemplating a charter. Trait-motives that
is approval or agreeable- virtue, disapproval elicit-vices. Those moral approval/disapproval relies on
sympathy which allows feeling to be shared.

Set of Virtues

1. Natural Virtue- temperance

2. Artificial Virtue

References:

Morris, W. (2009). David Hume’s Life and Works. Retrieved from

http://www.humesociety.org/about/HumeBiography.asp

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2014).Humes Moral Philosophy. Retrieved from

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume-moral/#Aca

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2014). Moral Sentimantalism. Retrieved from

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-sentimentalism/

John Stuart Mill; Ethical Concept

“Utilitarianism”

The ethical concept of John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) is most extensively articulated in his text
Utilitarianism (1861). Its goal is to justify the Utilitarian principle as the foundation of morals. This principle
say that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness. So, Mill focuses on consequences of
actions and not on right nor ethical sentiments. Mill was educated by his father James Mill who was a close
friend of Jeremy Bentham. John Stuart Mill came in contact with Utilitarian thought at a very early stage of his
life. Mill adapts Jeremy Bentham concept of Utilitarianism but rejects his view that humans are unrelentingly
driven by narrow self-interest. He believed that a “ desire for perfection “ and sympathy for fellow human
beings belong to human nature. One of the central tenets of mills political outlook is that, not only the rules of
society but also people themselves are capable of improvement. According to his early essay “ Bentham”
(1838), all reasonable moral theories assure that “ the morality of actions depends on the consequences which
they tend to produce “ thus, the difference between moral theories lie on axiological plane. His own theory of
morality, writes Mill in Utilitarianism, is grounded in particular “ theory of life “, namely, that pleasure, and
freedom from pain are the only things desirable as ends. Such a theory of life is commonly called hedonistic,
and it seems appropriate to say that Mill conceives his position as hedonistic even if he does never use the word
“ hedonism “ or it cognates. What makes utilitarianism peculiar, according to mill, is it hedonistic theory of
good. Utilitarian are, by this definition, hedonists. For this reason, Mill sees no need to differentiate between the
utilitarian and the hedonistic aspect of his moral theory. Mill was convinced that some types of pleasure are
more valuable than others in virtue of their inherent qualities. What inherent qualities make one kind of pleasure
better than another, according to mill?. He declares that the more valuable pleasures are those which employ “
higher faculties”. The list of such better enjoyments includes “ the pleasure of intellect, of feelings and
imagination, and of the moral sentiments “. These enjoyments make use of highly developed capacities like
judgment and empathy. In one of his most famous sentences, Mill affirms that it “ is better to be human
dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. At the beginnings
Utilitarianism, Mill’s postulates the moral judgments presumes rules. In contrast to Kant who grounds his
ethical theory on self-imposed rules, so called Maxims. Mill thinks that morality builds on social rules. He
maintains that we name a type of action morally wrong if we think that it should be sanctioned either through
formal punishment, disapproval (external sanctions) or through bad conscience (internal sanctions).

In Utilitarianism, Mill designs the following model of moral deliberation. In the first step the
actor should be examine which of the rules (Secondary Principles) in the moral code of his or her society are
pertinent in given situation. If in a given situation moral rules (secondary principle) conflict, then and only then
can the second step invoke the formula of utility as first principle, Pointedly one could say the principle of
utility is for Mill not a component of morality but instead its basis. It seems the validation of rightness for our
system and allows – as a meta - rule the decision of conflicting norms. In Utilitarianism he seems to give to
different formulations of the utilitarian standards. The first point in an act utilitarian, the second in a rule
utilitarian. Mill is in regard to a rule utilitarian. This way the seeming contradiction between the first and the
second formula can be resolved. The first formula states what is right and what an agent his most reason to do.
It points the “foundation of morals “ In contrast, the second formula told us what our moral obligations are we
are morally obliged to follow these social rules and precepts the observance of which promote the happiness in
the greatest extent possible. Mill rejects on objection raised by one of his most competent philosophical
advisories. Whewell claimed that utilitarianism permits murder and other crimes in particular circumstances and
is therefore incompatible with our considered moral judgments. Mill discussion of Whewell criticism is
exceedingly helpful in clarifying his ethical approach. Does utilitarianism require as to kill such people whose
the ” cause of no good to any human being, of cruel physical and moral suffering to several?, Mill answer in the
negative. His main point is that nobody’s life would be safe people were allowed to kill others when they
believe to be a source of unhappiness. Thus, a general rule that would allow to “ remove men who are a cause of
no good “ would be worse than a general rule that does not allow such acts. People should follow the rule not to
kill other humans because the general observance of the rule tends to promote the happiness of all.

In the final chapter of Utilitarianism , Mill turns to the sentiment of justice. Actions that are perceived as
unjust provoke outrage. The spontaneity of this feeling and intensity makes its impossible for it to be ignored by
the theory of morals. Mills considers two possible interpretations of the source of sentiment of justice; first of
all, that we are equipped with a sense of justice which is an independent principle of justice. Both
interpretations are irreconcilable with Mills position, and thus it is no wonder that he takes this issue to be of
exceptional importance. He names the integration of justice the only real difficulty for utilitarian theory.

Mill argues that utilitarianism coincides with “ Natural “ sentiments that originate from humans social
nature. Therefore if society were embrace Utilitarianism as an ethic, people would naturally internalize these
standards as morally binding. Mill argues that happiness is the sole basis of morality, and that all other objects
of people desire are either means to happiness. To explain further the sentiment of justice is actually based on
utility, and that rights exist only because they are necessary for human happiness. To end this, through the faith
of Mill in mora Utilitarianism that show us that his view about Utilitarianism are truly compatible and still
remain a debated issue.

Bibliography:

Plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill. moral. philosophy

http:||www.philosophytalk.erg

www-iep-utm-edu

www-ukessays.com
BUNIEL, OLAH M. MR. RENATO AGDALPEN

201513827 ABPS 3-1

____________________________________________________________________________________

MAHATMA GANDHI

This paper will tackle not only about the philosopher but also his ethical philosophy and how we can use
it and somehow relate our current situation. It might also help us to be a better individual and guide us through
our daily lives. Mahatma Gandhi also known as Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was born on October 2, 1869 in
Porbandar, India and died on January 30, 1948 in New Delhi, India. He was known as the leader of the Indian
Independence Movement against British rule as he led the India to independence and inspired movements for
civil rights and freedom across the world.

Gandhian Philosophy is the religious and social ideas adopted and developed by Gandhi, first during his
period in South Africa 1893 to 1914, and later of course in India. These ideas have been further developed by
later called “Gandhians”. Outside of India, for example is Martin Luther King Jr. He can also viewed in this
light. They understand the universe to be an organic whole. The spiritual or religious element and God is at its
core. Human nature is regarded as fundamentally virtuous. All individuals are believed to be capable of high
moral development, and reform. There is twin cardinal principles of Gandhi’s thought, the truth and the
nonviolence. For Gandhi, truth is the relative truth of truthfulness in word and deed. It is not enough for the
word to be truth it should always can be seen in action because if there’s no action it will still be a lie. There are
two kinds of truth according to Gandhi, the ultimate or the absolute truth. The Absolute truth is God. And, the
second kind of truth is the morality, the moral laws and code. The second of the twin cardinal principle is the
nonviolence. Nonviolence or ahimsa in Sanskrit means refusal to inflict upon others or the absence of overt
violence. He made us realized that the philosophy of nonviolence is not a weapon of the weak; it is a weapon,
which we can be tried by all. Nonviolence was not Gandhi’s invention. He is however called the ‘father of
nonviolence’ because he raised nonviolent action to a level never before achieved. Truth and Nonviolence were
old as hills. Gandhi spend his life searching for truth and while searching truth he then discovered the
nonviolence, according to him in order for us to discover truth we need to use the nonviolence. For nonviolence
to be strong and effective in should start with the mind. A mind which is not weak and coward. Because what
we think is what we always want to happen. A coward is a person who lacks courage when facing a dangerous
and unpleasant situation and tries to avoid it. A man cannot practice ahimsa and at the same time be a coward.
True nonviolence is dissociated from fear. There is hope that violent man may someday be nonviolent, but there
is no room for a coward to develop fearlessness. But according to Gandhi, Ahimsa or nonviolence is love.
Because if you have love towards somebody, and you respect that person, then you are not going to do any
harm to that person. He stationed nonviolence in two main points. First, if according to the Divine Reality all
life is one, then all violence is committed towards another is violence toward oneself, towards the collective,
and whole self. Second, Gandhi believed that Ahimsa is the most powerful force in existence. From viewpoints,
nonviolence or love is regarded as the highest law of humankind. The ultimate responsibility of a Gandhian is to
resist clear injustice, untruth, in conjunction with other or alone. Resistance should be nonviolent if at all
possible. But Gandhi did condone use of violent means in certain circumstances, in preference to submission in
which he regarded as cowardice and equivalent to cooperation with evil.

Violence in Sanskrit root “Himsa” means injury or to inflict upon others. There are two kinds of
violence according to Gandhi. The physical and the passive violence. Physical violence is directly or actual
committing the violence while passive violence is a daily affair, consciously and unconsciously. It is the fuel
that ignites the fire of physical violence. In the midst of hyper violence blessed the man who can possess
nonviolence. Gandhi object to violence because it will only perpetuates hatred. When it appears to do ‘good’,
the good is only temporary and cannot do any good in the long run. Perpetrators of violence is whom he called
criminals are products of social disintegration. Violence is not a natural tendency of humans. It is learned
through experience. The perfect weapon to combat violence and this is nonviolence.

The center of Gandhi’s contribution to the philosophy of Nonviolence is Satyagraha. Satyagraha literally
means devotion to truth, remaining firm on the truth and resisting untruth actively but not violently. Since the
only way for Gandhi getting truth is through nonviolence or love. It also defined as the philosophy of
nonviolent resistance. Satyagraha is a moral weapon and the stress is on soul force over physical force. It aims
at winning the enemy through love and patient suffering. It also aims at winning over an unjust law, not at
crushing, punishing, or taking revenge against the authority, but to convert and heal it. It became in the long run
a struggle for individual salvation, which could be achieved through love and self-sacrifice. It is meant to
overcome all methods of violence. It is also a movement based entirely upon truth. It replaces every form of
violence, direct and indirect, veiled and unveiled and whether in thought, word and deed. Satyagraha is for the
strong in spirit. A doubter or a timed person cannot do it. It teaches the art of living well as well dying. There
are basic percepts essential to Satyagraha: Truth, Nonviolence and Self-Suffering. Failure to grasp them is a
handicap to the understanding to Gandhi’s non-violence.

Satya or Truth is a relative. Man is not capable of knowing the absolute truth. Satyagraha implies
working steadily towards a discovery of the absolute truth and converting the opponent into a trend in the
working process. There is no religion or duty greater than truth. Reaching pure and absolute truth is attaining
moksha. Gandhi holds the truth is God. Ahimsa or love refusal to inflict others. When love enters the thoughts it
becomes truth. For at these values it is love which flows as the undercurrent. The last basic percepts is the
Tapasya or Self-suffering. It is a test of love. Gandhi’s choice of self-suffering does not mean that he valued life
love. It is rather a sign of voluntary help and it is noble and morally enriching. Self-suffering not because we
value life low but because it will results in the long run in the least loss of life, and what is more, it enables
those who lose their lives and morally enriches the world for their sacrifice. For Satyagraha to be valid, it has to
be tested.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

RomeshThapar, ’The relations of the truth and non-violence in Gandhi’s Thinking’ in T.K Mahadevan (ed),
op.cit

An autobiography or The story of my experiments with truth: M.K Gandhi

www.yourarticlelibrary.com/Maha

tma-influence-of-Indian-SocialPhilosophy

gandhiserve.org/information/briefphilosophy.html

I. PHILOSOPHER

Henry Sidgwick

Born May 31 1838 at Skipton in Yorkshire he died August 28 1900 was a utilitarian philosopher and
economist he’s main interest.

Is ethics and politics in influence by Jeremy Bentham and David Hume also John Stuart 1869, he
exchanged his lectureship in classics for one in moral philosophy, a subject to which he had been turning his
attention. In the same year, deciding that he could no longer in good conscience declare himself a member of
the Church of England, he resigned his fellowship. He retained his lectureship and in 1881 he was elected an
honorary fellow. In 1874 he published The Methods of Ethics (6th ed. 1901, containing emendations written
just before his death); by common consent a major work, which made his reputation outside the university. John
Rawls called it the "first truly academic work in moral theory, modern in both method and spirit

II. ETHICAL CONCEPT

Sidgwick defined the 3 basic methods of ethics

1. Egoistic - that every individual should pursue his own happiness

2. Universalistic - should pursue the act in a way that he / she promoted the happiness of individualism

3. Intuitionism - the principle of this is that the rightness or wrongness of some action

Is depending on the consequences of action.

III. Bibliography

Arthur & Eleanor Mildred Sidgwick, Henry Sidgwick, 1906

The Ethics of Conformity and Subscription. 1870.

The Methods of Ethics. London, 1874, 7th edition 1907.

The Theory of Evolution in its application to Practice, in Mind, Volume I, Number 1 January 1876, 52–67,

Principles of Political Economy. London, 1883, 3rd edition 1901.

The Scope and Method of Economic Science. 1885.

Outlines of the History of Ethics for English Readers. 1886 5th edition 1902 (enlarged from his article ethics in
the Encyclopædia Britannica).

The Elements of Politics. London, 1891, 4th edition 1919.

"The Philosophy of Common Sense", in Mind, New Series, Volume IV, Number 14, April 1895, 145–158.

Economic science and economics, Palgrave's Dictionary of Political Economy, 1896, v. 1, reprinted in The New
Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics, 1987, v. 2, 58–59.

Practical Ethics. London, 1898, 2nd edition 1909

Casil, Char Mae C.

ABPS 3-1
Lawrence Kohlberg
Lawrence Kohlberg was, for many years, a professor at Harvard University. He became famous for his
work there beginning in the early 1970s. He started as a developmental psychologist and then moved to the field
of moral education. He was particularly well-known for his theory of moral development which he popularized
through research studies conducted at Harvard's Center for Moral Education.
His theory of moral development was dependent on the thinking of the Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget and
the American philosopher John Dewey. He was also inspired by James Mark Baldwin. These men had
emphasized that human beings develop philosophically and psychologically in a progressive fashion.
Kohlberg believed, and was able to demonstrate through studies...that people progressed in their moral
reasoning (i.e., in their bases for ethical behavior) through a series of stages. He believed that there were six
identifiable stages which could be more generally classified into three levels.
The first level of moral thinking is that generally found at the elementary school level. In the first stage of
this level, people behave according to socially acceptable norms because they are told to do so by some
authority figure (e.g., parent or teacher). This obedience is compelled by the threat or application of
punishment. The second stage of this level is characterized by a view that right behavior means acting in one's
own best interests.
The second level of moral thinking is that generally found in society, hence the name "conventional." The
first stage of this level (stage 3) is characterized by an attitude which seeks to do what will gain the approval of
others. The second stage is one oriented to abiding by the law and responding to the obligations of duty.
The third level of moral thinking is one that Kohlberg felt is not reached by the majority of adults. Its first
stage (stage 5) is an understanding of social mutuality and a genuine interest in the welfare of others. The last
stage (stage 6) is based on respect for universal principle and the demands of individual conscience. While
Kohlberg always believed in the existence of Stage 6 and had some nominees for it, he could never get enough
subjects to define it, much less observe their longitudinal movement to it.
Kohlberg believed that individuals could only progress through these stages one stage at a time. That is,
they could not "jump" stages. They could not, for example, move from an orientation of selfishness to the law
and order stage without passing through the good boy/girl stage. They could only come to a comprehension of a
moral rationale one stage above their own. Thus, according to Kohlberg, it was important to present them with
moral dilemmas for discussion which would help them to see the reasonableness of a "higher stage" morality
and encourage their development in that direction. The last comment refers to Kohlberg's moral discussion
approach. He saw this as one of the ways in which moral development can be promoted through formal
education. Note that Kohlberg believed, as did Piaget, that most moral development occurs through social
interaction. The discussion approach is based on the insight that individuals develop as a result of cognitive
conflicts at their current stage.

References:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg

https://www.simplypsychology.org/kohlberg.html

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Lawrence-Kohlberg

https://www.goodtherapy.org/famous-psychologists/lawrence-kohlberg.html

Caspillan, Jessica Joyce R.

BSAM- 31
I. Philosopher

One in every five persons on this earth firmly believes that the Prophet Muhammad is the last Messenger of
God. He was a Muslim and there are more than 1.3 billion such Muslims today.

He was a descendant of the Prophet Ismail the son of Prophet Ibrahim. Prophet Muhammadwas born in Mecca,
year 570 A.D.It was to Prophet Muhammad that God revealed the Quran. He understood it, he loved it and he lived his
life based on its standards. He taught us to recite the Quran, to live by its principles and to love it. When Muslims
declare their faith in One God, they also declare their belief that Muhammad is the slave and final messenger of God.

Muhammad was a selfless man who devoted the last 23 years of his life to teaching his companions and
followers how to worship God and how to respect humanity. Prophet Muhammad was acutely aware of just
how much responsibility had been thrust upon him by God. He was careful to teach the message just as God
had prescribed and warned his followers not to adulate him the way Jesus, son of Mary was praised.

Muslims do not worship Prophet Muhammad; they understand that he is only a man. However, he is a man
worthy of our utmost respect and love. Prophet Muhammad loved humanity so much that he would weep out of
fear for them. He loved his Ummah with such deep and profound devotion that God remarked on the depth of
his love for us in Quran.

II. Ethical Concept

The motive force in Islamic ethics is the notion that every human being is called to "command the good and
forbid the evil" in all spheres of life. Muslims understand the role of Muhammad as attempting to facilitate this
submission. Another key factor in the field of Islamic ethics is the belief that mankind has been granted the
faculty to discern God's will and to abide by it. This faculty most crucially involves reflecting over the meaning
of existence. Therefore, regardless of their environment, humans are believed to have a moral responsibility to
submit to God's will and to follow Islam (as demonstrated in the Qur'an

1. Worship only God: Do not make with Allah another god; lest you will sit disgraced and forsaken.
(Quran 17:22)
2. Be kind, honourable and humble to one's parents: And your Lord has decreed that you not worship
except Him alone, and to be good to the parents. Whether one or both of them reach old age [while]
with you, say not to them [so much as], a word of disrespect, and do not repel them but speak to them a
 noble word. (Quran 17:23) And lower to them the wing of humility out of mercy and say, "My Lord,
have mercy upon them as they brought me up [when I was] small." (Quran 17:24)
3. Be neither miserly nor wasteful in one's expenditure: And give the relative his right, and [also] the
poor and the traveler, and do not spend wastefully. (Quran 17:26) Indeed, the spendthrifts are brothers
of the devil, and the devil is, to his lord, ungrateful. (Quran 17:27) And if you [must] turn away from
the needy awaiting mercy from your Lord which you expect, then speak to them a gentle word.
(Quran 17:28) And do not make your hand [as] chained to your neck or extend it to its utmost reach, so
that you [thereby] become blamed and insolvent. (Quran 17:29)
4. Do not engage in 'mercy killings' for fear of starvation: And do not kill your children for fear of
poverty. We provide for them and for you. Indeed, their killing is ever a great sin. (Quran 17:31)
5. Do not commit adultery: And do not approach unlawful sexual intercourse. Indeed, it is an immorality
and an evil way. (Quran 17:32)
6. Do not kill unjustly: And do not kill the soul which Allah has forbidden, except by right. And whoever
is killed unjustly - We have given his heir authority, but let him not exceed limits in [the matter of]
taking life. Indeed, he has been supported [by the law]. (Quran 17:33)
7. Care for orphaned children: And do not approach the property of an orphan, except in the way that is
best, until he reaches maturity...(Quran 17:34)
8. Keep one's promises: ...fulfill (every) engagement [i.e. promise/covenant], for (every) engagement will
be questioned (on the Day of Reckoning). (Quran 17:34)
9. Be honest and fair in one's interactions: And give full measure when you measure, and weigh with an
even balance. That is the best [way] and best in result. (Quran 17:35)
10. Do not be arrogant in one's claims or beliefs: And do not pursue that of which you have no
knowledge. Indeed, the hearing, the sight and the heart - all those will be questioned. (Quran 17:36)
And do not walk upon the earth exultantly. Indeed, you will never tear the earth [apart], and you will
never reach the mountains in height. (Quran 17:37)

You should know that reciprocating vile deeds with vile d eeds would only increase vileness.
Therefore, the command to patiently endure abusive transgressions minimizes those things that
bring harm to the worldly realm. Similarly, the command to remain mindful of God minimizes
those things that jeopardize the life hereafter. Hence, this verse combines the etiquettes essential
for [success in] this world and the next.

[Al-Qur’an 3:128]
In this verse, God reminds His Prophet, , that He is in control. The control of the affair of the
universe is with Him. As for the Prophet, , his job is to convey the message, and not to burden
himself by worrying about the ensuing outcome. In conveying the message, the Prophet,, is
instructed to adopt the highest ethical standard, a standard that is established by God, not by
himself, nor any other human agent. God says, Surely, you are on an exalted standard of
character. [Al-Qur’an 68:4]

III. Bibliography

Ten Commandments in the Quran (part 1 of 3): A Quick Introduction

Waheed - https://www.islamreligion.com/articles/5114/viewall/ten-commandments-in-quran/

DIONISIO, Richerry R.
201510439
ABPS 3-1

SIMONE DE BEAUVOIR : WOMAN AS OTHER

I. THE PHILOSOPHER
Simone de Beauvoir was a French writer who was born on January 8, 1908. She’s an existentialist
philosopher together with her long time partner, Jean – Paul Sartre who later on laid the foundation for the
modern feminist movement. De Beauvoir died in Paris on April 14, 1986, at the age of 78. She shares a grave
with Sartre in the Montparnasse Cemetery.
II. ETHICAL CONCEPT
De Beauvoir is one of the proponents of the 2nd wave feminism. This era of feminisim emerged in
early 1960’s. Unlike the first wave it aimed all women to have freedom, equal opportunity and control over
their lives.
A. WOMAN AS THE OTHER
She based her philosophy on Hegel’s Master-Slave relationship. Hegel said that human beings relate to
the world through the principle of negation that we want to master each other. “Two opposing selves thus
engage in the “struggle unto death”, each one aiming to reinforce its identity by killing the other”. (Lavine
1984:220) With that being said, it is not enough to defeat the other, they must recognize his/her will. This is
where the Master-Slave relationship begins. According to Sartre, we cannot exist without annihilating each
other’s freedom, if the look of the other objectifies you, you can’t help but do the same thing to him/her which
De Beauvoir claims the reciprocity to be possible. Reciprocity involves you acknowledging the subjectivity of
the other at the same time that they acknowledges yours but if we are talking between the sexes, the one whose
freedom is truly limited – the one who is objectified or treated as other – is the female.
Women defined exclusively in opposition to men. Man occupies the role of the self, or subject; woman
is the object. He is essential, absolute and transcendent. She is inessential, incomplete, and mutilated. Women
were defined as relative to him and not regarded as an autonomous being. He is the one and she is the other.
Beauvoir returns to the idea that the otherness imposed on woman in a social contact.
B. ONE IS NOT BORN, BUT RATHER BECOMES A WOMAN
According to de Beauvoir, nobody is born a woman. “Being a woman” is more of an essence and not a
biological factor. She said that femininity does not arise from differences in biology, psychology or intellect.
Rather, femininity is a construction of civilization, a reflection- not “essential” differences in men and women
but of differences in their situation. Situation determines character, not the other way around. Woman is not
born fully formed, she is gradually shaped by her upbringing. Biology does not determine what makes a
woman a woman- a woman learns her role from man and others in society. Woman is not born passive,
secondary and nonessential, but all the forces in the external world have conspired to make her so. Every
individual self, regardless of gender, is entitled to subjectivity, it is only outside forces that have conspired to
rob women of this right.

Situation Ethics
Weldon E. Warnock
Akron, Ohio
Ethics means "a series of rules and laws and principles by which we act and which tell us
what to do." But "situation ethics" is not geared to rules and regulations. This system of ethics
refuses to be circumscribed by rules and laws. It says there is nothing right or wrong. Moral
behavior is relative, not absolute. Decisions depend on the situation at hand, rather than law.
It is also called the "new morality," "contextualism," "ethical individualism," "casuistry," as
well as some others. But regardless what one calls it, it does not make the system anymore
respectable.
Joseph Fletcher's Views
Joseph Fletcher, a professor of Social Ethics, an Episcopalian and a well-known proponent of
"situation ethics," stated: "As we shall see, Christian situation ethers has only one norm or
principle or law (call it what you will) that is binding and unexceptionable, always good and
right regardless of the circumstances. That is `love' - the agape of the summary
commandment to love God and the neighbor" (Situation Ethics, p. 30).
Fletcher further wrote, "For the situationist there are no rules - none at all" (p. 55); " . . .
`circumstances alter rules and principles"' (p. 29); " . . . all laws and rules and principles and
ideals and norms, are only contingent, only valid if they happen to serve love in any situation
. . . . the Christian chooses what he believes to be the demands of love in the present
situation" (pp. 30, 55). "The new morality, situation ethics declares that anything and
everything is right or wrong, according to the situation" (p. 124).
There are three approaches to follow in making moral decisions according to Fletcher (pp. 18-
 26):
(1) Legalistic. He says, "With this approach one enters into every decision making situation
encumbered with a whole apparatus of prefabricated rules and regulations.
(2) Antinomianism. "Over against legalism, as a sort of polar opposite, we can put
antinomianism. This is the approach with which one enters into the decision making situation
armed with no principles or maxims whatsoever, to say nothing of rules.
(3) Situationism. "A third approach, in between legalism and antinomianism
unprincipledness, is situation ethics.The situationist enters into every decision making
situation fully armed with the ethical maxims of his community and its heritage, and he treats
them with respect as illuminators of his problems. Just the same he is prepared in any
situation to compromise them or set them aside in the situation if love seems better served by
doing so . . . . The situationist follows a moral law or violates it according to love's need."
Fletcher allows stealing, lying, adultery, and anything else that the law of God prohibits. His
thinking is shown in the following statement: "But situation ethics has good reason to hold it
as a duty in some situations to break them, any or all of them. We would be better advised
and better off to drop the legalist's love of law, and accept only the law of love" (p. 74).
On pages 164-165 of Fletcher's book, Fletcher captures the attention of the readers about a
German woman separated from her husband at the Battle of the Bulge, and was imprisoned in
the Ukraine. While in prison she learned that her husband, also a prisoner of war, had been
released from another camp and had located their two children in Berlin.
There were two reasons why the Russians would release a prisoner: (1) For severe medical
treatment or (2) pregnancy. She persuaded a Russian soldier to impregnate her in order to be
released. Following her pregnancy she was released and joyfully united with her family. All
loved her and the child born out of adultery. Fletcher lauds this as a loving act, the law against
adultery being superseded by the situation at hand.
From what Fletcher said, we can readily see where situationism is coming from. It is a
philosophy of liberalism, pragmatism, relativism and individualism that arrays itself against
the Word of God and makes a mockery out of the Bible.

Reference
Truth Magazine XXIII: 20, pp. 327-330
May 17, 1979

Gallenero, Ronalyn G.
ABE 3-1

Gallo, Clarisse D. HUMN8 ETHICS

201515334 Written Report

ABPS 3-1

WILLIAM DAVID ROSS

 AND THE PRIMA FACIE DUTIES

I.PHILOSOPHER

William David Ross (1877-1971)

Sir William David Ross was a Scottish Philosopher best known for his contributions to Classical Studies
and Moral Philosophy. He was born on April 15, 1877 in Thurso, Scotland. He attended school at Royal High
School in Edinburgh, Scotland and at the Edinburgh University, where he graduated with first-class honors in
Classics. He then went to Balliol College. He works as a lecturer at Oriel College, Oxford from 1902 to 1947.
He served as vice-chancellor of Oxford University from 1941 to 1944, president of the Union
AcademiqueInternationale on 1947, and Chairman of the Royal Commission on the Press from 1947 to 1949.
He also served the Military.

Ross translated writings of Plato and Aristotle. Ross was considered a major figure in the study of
Aristotle. He was the general editor of the Oxford Aristotle Series and had contributed translations of Aristotle's
Metaphysics and nicomachean ethics. With regards to Ross' contribution to Ethics, he wrote the Right and the
Good and there he made a critique of Kant's Moral Philosophy as well as Utilitarianism. Although his work
suffered from many critics, it is still considered one of the most important works of moral philosophy published
in twentieth century. He died on May 25, 1971 in Oxford.

II. ETHICAL CONCEPT

A.Background

By the time Ross made his Ethical Theory of Prima Facie Duties, there exist two opposing theories at
that time. The Utilitarianism, which believes that the consequences of our action determine the rightness and the
wrongness of the action. For them the more beneficial and the more good consequences the action produced, the
more it makes our actions right. The second one is the Kantian Ethics, which believed that it is not the
consequences of our action that determine the rightness or wrongness of the act, but it is whether or not, our
actions fulfill our duties or moral obligation with accordance to the Categorical Imperatives, a universal rule
that sets out duties in which it should be strictly followed.
 Ross made an opposition with these theories and build a theory of his own. Although, he did not rejected
their ideas, there are ideas that he accepted and ideas that he criticized. According to him, there are errors in our
moral thinking and we are not obliged to accept a certain theory as it is. He contended that those theories are not
absolute and that we are not forced to follow these all the time.

B. Criticisms to Utilitarianism and Kantian Ethics

First, Ross criticized that both theories oversimplified the moral life and that both tend to disregard the
commonsense morality and the plain thinking of men. For him, the two theories failed to include other
conditions and sometimes these theories may contradict with what a common man would think and act in a
particular situation.

According to Ross, Kant is wrong to think that the rightness or wrongness of an act is based on the
Categorical Imperatives that imposed moral rules which have absolute authority admitting no exemption.
Supposed, you have a kind and innocent friend and there are bad guys who hate your friend for being such a
kind person. These guys want to hurt your friend so your friend run to you and seek for your help. These bad
guys knock in your door and ask if you see the person they are looking, and they are pertaining to your friend.
In that case will you tell them the truth about your friend or will you protect your friend? In that given situation,
categorical imperatives are not applicable and it is justified to tell them lie and protect your friend.

Ross also criticize the Utilitarians for claiming that what makes right acts right if it produces maximum
good. Supposed you promised to A that when he passed away you will give his wealth to B but then it would be
more beneficial if you gave it to C. So whom do you gave A's wealth? To B? Or C? Utilitiarians might say that
it should be given to C. While, other people will give choose B because they might also considered past actions
such as the making of the promise.For Ross Utilirarians failed to include other conditions and that the duty of
maximizing goods is just one of the many other duties existing.

C. The Prima Facie Duties

Ross contended that, there are many sources of morality, not only if it conforms to a moral rule and not
only if it produces maximum goods. Past actions, justice and fairness, the rights of others, established and
significant relationships and the obligations aroused from it, self-improvement and the given circumstances or
the situation itself can affect the rightness and the wrongness of the act.

He then proposed Prima Facie Duties. "Prima Facie" means "First Impression" or "at first blush". It is
because the decision whether what duty to use is by what we perceived is needed on a given situation. These
Prima Facie Duties are: Duty of Fidelity, the duty to keep our promise and being truthful; Duty of Reparation,
the duty to make amend for those people we harmed or cause troubles; Duty of Gratitude, which tells us to be
grateful to those who have benefited us and returning favors to them; Duty of Non-Injury, the duty to refrain
from harming others; Duty of Beneficence which tells us to be helpful and beneficial to others; Duty of Self-
improvement, the duty of improving one’s self; and lastly, the Duty of Justice and Fairness, which states that in
every actions we made, we should try to be fair and distribute the goodness evenly.

Ross didn't intend to make a hierarchyamong these duties nor treat them as equal. One is not required to
follow all these duties at a given time. In every situation there is one duty that will prevail, it depends on the
given circumstances, careful analyzation of the situation and balancing of these duties will help is to decide and
act correctly.

III.BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ethical Realism. (2017). W. D. Ross’s Intuitionism, a Moral Theory. [online] Available at:
https://ethicalrealism.wordpress.com/2011/05/18/w-d-rosss-moral-theory-the-right-and-the-good/ [Accessed 13
Nov. 2017].

Ethicsinpr.wikispaces.com. (2017). Ethics in Public Relations - W. D. Ross. [online] Available at:

https://ethicsinpr.wikispaces.com/W.+D.+Ross [Accessed 13 Nov. 2017].

Iep.utm.edu. (2017). Ross, William David | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. [online] Available at:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/ross-wd/ [Accessed 13 Nov. 2017].

People.umass.edu. (2017). [online] Available at: https://people.umass.edu/klement/160/ross.pdf [Accessed 13

Nov. 2017].

Skelton, A. (2017). William David Ross. [online] Plato.stanford.edu. Available at:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/william-david-ross/ [Accessed 13 Nov. 2017].

EPICURUS
 Epicurus is one of the major philosophers in the Hellenistic period. It was after the death of Alexander the Great.
He is known to be an atomic materialist. He followed the steps of Democritus. He began studying philosophy at the age
of 14. His parents were Neocles and Chairestrate.

EPICUREANISM

Epicureanism, a philosophy that believes that pleasure is the greatest good. It can be achieved if one will live a
life with modesty, to gain knowledge of the workings of the world and to limit one’s owns desires. Once a person seeks
the greatest good the person will gain the state of tranquility, Ataraxia, and freedom from fear, Aponia. The
combination of Ataraxia and Aponia will constitute to the highest form of pleasure.

Epicurus describes that pleasure may be obtained by gaining knowledge, forming friendships and living a
virtuous and temperate life. He said that “false beliefs” will lead to unnecessary pain.

“Neither to harm not to be harmed”, is one of Epicurus’s notion of justice. It is known to a kind of ‘social
contract’, an agreement of the people and the state. He says that the point of living in a society with laws and
punishments is to be protected from harm so one is free to pursue happiness. Laws that prevents human happiness are
considered to be unjust.

Soren Kierkegaard was a brilliant, gloomy, anxiety-ridden, often hilarious Danish 19th century philosopher.

In “Either/Or” and “Fear and trembling”, what Kierkegaard wants to do above all is wake up and give up our

cozy sentimental illusions. He systematically attacks the pillars of modern life which is our faith in family, our

trust in work, our attachment to love and our general sense that life has purpose and meaning.

His enemies were the smug in all their guises particularly the prosperous Danish haute bourgeoisie and the

members of the established Danish church.

He tells us, “As I grew up, I opened my eyes and saw the real world and I began to laugh and I haven’t stopped

since. I saw that the meaning of life is to get a livelihood, that the goal of life is to be a high-court judge, that the

brightest joy of love is to marry a well-off girl, that wisdom is what majority says it was, that passion is to give

a speech, that courage is to risk being fined ten dollars. That cordiality is to say, “You’re welcome” after a meal

and that the fear of God is to go to communion once a year. That’s what I saw, and I laughed.”

Kierkegaard was especially caustic about the 19th century understanding of love and the new ideology of

passionate marriage which aimed to unite desires with prudence and suggested that one could enjoy all the
thrills of a love affair and at the same time, all the stability for a long-term relationship, but Kierkegaard

mocked that notion that one could have passion and sex and at the same time, children, stability and routine. He

respected both, but he couldn’t believe you could have both at the same time in a cozy marriage sanctified by

the state and the neighbors. His belief arose out of his own tortured love life.

Everywhere he turned, Kierkegaard saw intolerable incompatibilities and impossible choices. It led him to one

memorable explosion in “Either/Or”. Marry, you’ll regret it. Don’t marry, you will also regret it. Marry or don’t

marry, you will regret it either way. Laugh at the world’s foolishness, you will regret it. Weep over it, you will

regret that too. Hang yourself, you will regret it. Don’t hang yourself, you will regret it as well. This gentleman

is the essence of all philosophy.

The mention of laughter isn’t a coincidence. Key to Kierkegaard’s philosophy is that the only intelligent tactical

response to life’s horror is to laugh defiantly at it. Rarely has a philosopher taken humor a seriously. He is often

described as the founder of the philosophical movement known as “existentialism” because in him, we find all

the themes that would interest later thinkers like Sartre, Camus and Heidegger. The book that fascinated the

existentialists was Kierkegaard’s “The Concept of Anxiety” published in 1844 in which emphasized a new

word, “angest” or “angst” as we know it in English. A condition where we understand how many choices we

face and how little understanding we can ever have of how to exercise these choices wisely. As Kierkegaard

wrote, “Life can only be understood backwards but must be lived forwards.” Our constant angst means that

unhappiness is more or less written into the script of life. As he wrote, “Anyone who has given the matter any

serious thought will know that I’m right when I say, it’s not possible for anyone to be absolutely and in every

conceivable way completely content. Not even for a single or half our of his life. No one has come into the

world without crying. No one asks when you want to enter, no one asks you when you want to leave. How

empty and meaningless life is. We bury a person, throw shovels of earth at him, drive out in a coach and

console ourselves that we still have enough left to live. But really, how long is three score and ten? Why not get

it over straight away?

For Kierkegaard there was, however, one answer that he put forward ever more stridently in his later works.

“Jesus Christ”. Kierkegaard loathed the Christianity of the established Danish church, but he adored the simple

truths that his father has taught him as a boy. For him, Christianity was a religion of extreme surrender to a

theology of almost peasant-like simplicity. One was to be ready to die for Christ. To give up all attachment to

worldly things and love all humans like one’s siblings. He wasn’t interested in justifying his attachment to

Christianity through rational means. Instead, he recommended a dramatic and now famous, “Leap of faith”

wherein one wouldn’t apply one’s puny mind in to prove the existence of God. One would merely switch off

one’s faulty rational faculties and jump into idea of God as the total solution. As he put it, “To have faith is to

lose your mind and win God.”

Emotivism: An Extreme Form of Personal Relativism

I. About the philosopher

The English philosopher A.J. Ayer (1910 – 1989) and the American philosopher Charles Stevenson (1908 –
1979) developed a different version of subjectivism. Charles Leslie Stevenson (June 27, 1908 – March 14,
1979) was an American analytic philosopher best known for his work in ethics and aesthetics.[2]

He was a professor at Yale University from 1939 to 1946, but was denied tenure because of his defense of
emotivism. He then taught at the University of Michigan from 1946 to 1977. He studied
in England with Wittgenstein and G. E. Moore. Among his students was Joel Feinberg.

He gave the most sophisticated defense of emotivism in the post-war period. In his papers "The Emotive
Meaning of Ethical Terms" (1937) and "Persuasive Definitions" (1938), and his book Ethics and
Language (1944), he developed a theory of emotive meaning; which he then used to provide a foundation for
his theory of a persuasive definition. He furthermore advanced emotivism as a meta-ethical theory that sharply
delineated between cognitive, scientific uses of language (used to state facts and to give reasons, and subject to
the laws of science) and non-cognitive uses (used to state feelings and exercise influence).

II. Ethical Concept

 Emotivism is a theory that claims that moral language or judgments: 1) are neither true or false; 2)
express our emotions; and 3) try to influence others to agree with us. To better understand emotivism,
consider the following statements:

The Earth is larger than Jupiter.

The St. Louis Cardinals won the World Series in 1964.

Both are declarative statements that are either true or false; both statement have cognitive content. Now
consider the following:

Go Manchester United!
Damn!

Both are exclamatory statements that are neither true nor false, and have no cognitive content. They
expresses emotions and try to influence others to share the emotion.

Emotivists believe that moral language expresses emotions and tries to influence others; it has no
cognitive content. If I say homosexuality is evil, I’m just expressing my feeling that homosexuality is
disgusting! I am expressing my emotions and, at the same time, trying to influence you to dislike
homosexuality. The same analysis applies to any moral judgment. If I say that capital punishment is wrong, I’m
just expressing my dislike for it, and trying to get you to agree with me. I might as well have said capital
punishment, while shaking my head and rolling my eyes. And if I say that Stalin or Cheney were bad men—
which they were—I’m merely trying to get you to agree with what I’m really saying.

Now the difference between emotivism and personal relativism (subjectivism) is subtle. When personal
relativists say Gandhi was a good man they report their view of Gandhi. And this report is true or false
depending on whether they are telling the truth. But the emotivist claims there is no truth or falsity to moral
judgments whatsoever! If I say I hate abortion—assuming I’m being sincere—then this expressed emotion is
neither true nor false, it just is. In other words, the emotivist says that different moral judgments are just like
differences in taste. I like carrots; you don’t. I like homosexuality; you don’t. But emotivists don’t consider
moral judgments as reporting a speaker’s beliefs; they just express emotions. In the same way that cows moo,
humans emote. Therefore, according to the emotivists, moral language has no factual content at all and thus
cannot be true or false in any way. Now why would one think that moral language is just a disguised emotional
expression?
 Ayer thought that moral language was meaningless because it couldn’t be verified. If I say that there’s a
dollar on my desk, you know what I mean and you can verify or falsify my statement—you just go look. But if I
say that lying is bad, how you could verify this? Where would you go to see that lying was bad? Ayer argued
that statements that couldn’t be verified were meaningless. There is no meaning to propositions like abortion is
immoral because there is no way to show these statements are true or false.

While Stevenson granted that moral language didn’t have factual or cognitive content, he argued that it
had emotive meaning. Moral propositions aren’t true or false, but they aren’t meaningless either—moral
language allows us to express emotions. Thus he could easily account for our differences regarding ethics—we
have different emotions. And when we disagree, Stevenson said we have a disagreement in attitude. But
reasons or arguments will not change other people’s attitudes. Stevenson's ethical emotivism, further developed
in Ethics and Language (1944), quickly became an influential twentieth-centurynoncognitivist theory about the
meaning of moral language.

Critique of Emotivism

Do moral judgments express emotions, exclusively? If I say that Mother Theresa was a good woman,
I’m expressing my emotions, trying to influence you, and I’m making a moral judgment. On the other hand,
aren’t I doing more? Don’t I believe that Mother Theresa was good in comparison with some standard of
goodness? After all, I’m not just saying Mother Theresa, and then smiling. So when I say Mother Theresa was
good I express my fond feelings for her, and I do want you to feel the same, but that doesn’t mean that’s all I’m
doing. I almost certainly believe that Mother Theresa was good in a way that Dick Cheney wasn’t. So while a
moral judgment isn’t exactly the same as a factual judgment, it isn’t exactly the same as exclamatory judgments
either. Why?

Consider how I would go about persuading you that Mother Theresa was good, while Dick Cheney was
not. I might appeal to her selflessness working with the poor of Calcutta, her devotion to her friends, her daily
prayer and meditation, or the positive effect she had on strangers. And by doing this I’m giving you reasons for
thinking she was a good person. Now you might say that I just happen to like selfless nuns who win Nobel
Peace Prizes and that she was not better than Cheney. In response, I point out that Cheney masterminded the
extermination and torture of thousands, had a violent temper, was very unpleasant company, was a Nixon
operative, has no remorse for anything he ever did, and almost certainly never meditated. Again my opponents
might not be persuaded. Maybe killing and torturing thousands is a good thing, or being nice is an awful thing.
 But notice that you’re asking me for reasons, and I am giving you plenty of reasons why Mother
Theresa, or almost anyone else for that matter, was a better person than Dick Cheney—reasons that most
rational persons would accept. And whenever I give reasons, I’m doing more than just expressing emotions; I’m
assuming that there is more to moral claims than emotions. If not, why try to convince someone? True, I could
try to convince someone by merely continuing to express my emotions. But my emoting wouldn’t convince a
rational person. So it seems that objective reason must play some role in ethics.

Certainly it’s true that some people might not be convinced by good reasons, but that does not mean that
I didn’t give them good reasons or that reasons are unimportant. It might just be that they won’t accept the good
reasons I have given them. Thus, if I point out that your disliking me is irrelevant to what I deserve on a test,
then I have given you a good reason why I shouldn’t have failed. And we can probably think of many examples
when we give others good reasons to do or believe something and they just won’t listen. This appealing to
reasons to persuade suggests that we use moral language to do more than merely express emotions.

Therefore, emotivism presupposes that moral disagreements are incapable of being resolved by rational
discourse. There is no way to resolve our attitudinal disagreements unless we are persuasive enough (or violent
enough). But we have already seen that there’s another way to persuade—using reason to support our position.
We can provide good reasons why x is right or x is wrong. If we appeal to reason, we have discovered a way to
resolve our disputes that other than by shouting or beating others into submission. And if reason plays a role in
ethics, then there is truth or falsity about ethical judgments. And if that’s the case then emotivism is not a sound
theory.

III. Bibliography mxrgvrita@gmail.com

Reason and Meaning. (2017). Emotivism. [online] Available at:

https://reasonandmeaning.com/2016/11/26/emotivism/

En.wikipedia.org. (2017). Charles Stevenson. [online] Available at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Stevenson

Kemerling, G. (2017). Logical Positivism. [online] Philosophypages.com. Available at:

http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/6q.htm#eth
 FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE

I. Biography

Friedrich Nietzsche was born in Röcken, Prussia.Nietzsche suffered a major mental collapse on 1889.
After his mental collapse, he was still able to write many “Madness Letters”,which he subsequently sent to his
friends.He was brought to psychiatric clinic to cure his depressions. He also suffered two consecutive strokes
which partially paralyzed him resulting to inability to speak or walk.Nietzsche also contracted pneumonia
which worsened his condition. He suffered his third stroke during midnight which ended his life at the age of
55.

Nietzsche was a German atheist philosopher who claimed that the exemplary human being must craft
his/her own identity through self-realization and do so without relying on anything transcending that life- such
as God or a soul.

II. Ethical Concept

Since Nietzsche is an athieist philosopher, most of his thoughts lingers in the wilderness of his atheism.
He believes that God has nothing to do with man's moral quest for goodness. Nietzsche heralds the "Death of
God" saying that no great metaphysical forces governed human life and created a framework for meaning, every
individual faced the possibly absurdity of existence alone. God is dead and God has nothing to do with man's
moral life.

Nietzsche insists that there are no rules for human life, no absolute values, no certainties on which to
rely. If truth can be achieved at all, it can come only from an individual who purposefully disregards everything
that is traditionally taken to be "important."

III. Bibliography

 The School of Life. (2014, October 10). PHILOSOPHY - Nietzsche. Retrieved

fromhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHWbZmg2hzUYoutube.com
 Dale Wilkerson (n.d.). Friedrich Nietzsche (1844—1900). Retrieved from
http://www.iep.utm.edu/nietzsch/University of North Texas, Denton U. S. A.
 Nietzsche's Moral and Political Philosophy. (2004, August 26). Retrieved from
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche-moral-political/The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is
copyright © 2016 by The Metaphysics Research Lab, Center for the Study of Language and Information
(CSLI), Stanford University Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054
 EPICTETUS

Epictetus was born in about 55 C.E in Hierapolis in Phrygia (Pamukkalele in Western Turkey. He is a
slave of Epaphroditus who was a rich and powerful freedman, having himself been a slave of Emperor Nero.
While he is a slave , he studied with a stoic teacher Musonius Rufus.

When he was released from slavery , he went to Nicopolis in Epirus where he opened his own school
and acquired good reputation and attracting many upper-class and noble Romans.

It is said that Epictetus is more popular than Plato during his time.

 Discourses – Epictetus wrote nothing himself. Discourses is one of the writings of Flavius Arrian
, one of his student. It is the record of teachings and topics discussed by Epictetus in his formal
teachings.

Philosophy

Epictetus philosophy aim was to live well and secure for oneself eudemonia(happiness or flourishing
life).

Epictetus said that each one of us has consequences of being human and living in a society. We are as
well aware what comprises this consequences are ills. For example in our daily life, we are beset with
frustrations and setbacks. Our wants are hindered and we need to deal with different people in the society.
Sometimes we ill ourselves. He said that the ills we suffer are result of mistaken belief about what is truly good.

“People are not disturbed by things but by the view they take of them”

What is really good?

Stoic ethics claim that the only virtues and virtuous activities are good and that the only evil is vice and
actions motivated by vice. He said that eudaimon (happy life) is a life motivated by virtue. When there is virtue
there is arête(excellence) and to be an excellent human being you must maintain one’s prohairesis (moral
character). To maintain prohairesis, we must know what is in our power.

What is in our power?

We must understand what is in our power in order for us to maintain moral character and in order to
attain happiness and flourishing life.
 Our power pertains to the things which we can control such as our opinion, judgments , desires and
choices while the things that are not in our control is power , death , poverty , reputations.

“ It is not what happens to you but how you react to it that matters”

We all know that there is good and evil. People think that good and evil is from the outside
circumstances but according to Epictetus , good and evil is within ourselves and it is all inside us and the only
thing that matter are the things which is in our control. We cannot control circumstances but through our
choices we can’t prevent and make things happen.

If your choice or will is according to virtue then goodness is hooked into you and no one can take this
from you. The key in order to have good choice is to focus on what really matters.

Impressions

“We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak”

Impressions are the thoughts, feelings and impulses that arise. When stimulus occurs then your mind
will come up into this impressions and thoughts. We must stretch the gap between the stimulus we receive and
our response and as much as possible we must choose our response according to arête (moral character)

Conclusion

To achieve eudemonia is entirely dependent upon our own characters, how we handle ourselves, our
decisions and how we control things from the outside circumstances and we must maintain moral character to
have a happy and flourishing life. How we live is entirely up to us.

Bibliography

K.H. Seddon.The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.http://www.iep.utm.edu/home/about/

The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Epictetus-Greek-philosopher

Latog, Sylph L.
2015-14751
ABPS 3-1
HUMN8 - Ethics

What is the meaning of existence? That's a question that Albert Camus dug into. Camus begins
pointing out the absurdity of our place in the universe. But what specifically is the absurd part? The absurdity
isn’t the man or the universe. It’s the combination of both. Camus stated that there is a conflict between what
we find in the universe and what we want. He once said, “You will never be happy if you continue to search for
what happiness consists of. You will never live if you are looking for the meaning of life.” It’s either you have
to make a leap of faith or just conclude that life is meaningless. In his essay “The Myth of Sisyphus” it has a
bold beginning that says “There is but one truly serious philosophical problem and that is suicide.” If life has no
meaning, does that mean life is not worth living?

There are three characteristics of absurd life according to Camus. First is the revolt. We must not
accept any answer or reconciliation in our struggle. Second is Freedom. We are free to think and behave the
way we want and as we choose. And lastly, Passion. We must pursue a life of rich and diverse experiences.
Camus also said that we cannot create experience, we must undergo it. You could look pictures and watch
videos about a place or a thing or listen to your friends share their experiences but still being in it makes it real
experience. Get out there and live the life you want to live. Those who prefer their principles over their
happiness, they refuse to be happy outside the conditions they seem to have attached to their happiness.
Principles become our habits. Habits are hard to break. Therefore, this behavior can restrict our capacity for
happiness. To them happiness in life must be according to their principles, values or fundamental rules.
Otherwise, they still won’t be genuinely and truly happy.

Camus posits three responses in the impossibility of reducing this world to a rational and reasonable
principle: Ignore it and distract ourselves, accept it and kill ourselves or revolt against it and be happy anyway.
The line on his work Myth of Sisyphus, “One must imagine Sisyphus happy.” Is Camus’ way to remind himself
and us of the reasons why at some point life can be worth enduring.
Albert Camus was a French-Algerian writer best known for his absurdist works, including The
Stranger (1942) and The Plague (1947). He was born on November 7, 1913, in Mondavi, French Algeria. The
dominant philosophical contribution of Camus's work is absurdism. While he is often associated with
existentialism, he rejected the label, expressing surprise that he would be viewed as a philosophical ally of
Sartre. Elements of absurdism and existentialism are present in Camus's most celebrated writing. The Myth of
Sisyphus (1942) elucidates his theory of the absurd most directly. Albert Camus was awarded the Nobel Prize
for Literature in 1957. He died on January 4, 1960, in Burgundy, France. Camus married and divorced twice as
a young man, stating his disapproval of the institution of marriage throughout.

Works by Albert Camus

 The Stranger
 The Plague
Novels The Fall
 A Happy Death
 The First Man

 Exile and the Kingdom

 "The Adulterous Woman"
 "The Renegade"
Short stories "The Silent Men"
 "The Guest"
 "The Artist at Work"
 "The Growing Stone"

 Caligula
 The Misunderstanding
Plays The State of Siege
 The Just Assassins
 The Possessed

 The Myth of Sisyphus

 The Rebel
Essays "Reflections on the Guillotine"
 Resistance, Rebellion, and Death
 Summer in Algiers

(n.d.). Retrieved November 18, 2017, from

http://www.moq.org/forum/Kundert/AbsurdityandtheMeaningofLife.html
The Myth of Sisyphus. (n.d.). Retrieved November 18, 2017, from
http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/sisyphus/section11.rhtml

Albert Camus. (2014, April 02). Retrieved November 18, 2017, from https://www.biography.com/people/albert-
camus-9236690#!

Category:Works by Albert Camus. (2017, March 27). Retrieved November 18, 2017, from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Works_by_Albert_Camus

Popova, M. (2016, November 06). A Life Worth Living: Albert Camus on Our Search for Meaning and Why
Happiness Is Our Moral Obligation. Retrieved November 18, 2017, from
https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/09/22/a-life-worth-living-albert-camus/

THE THIRD WAVE FEMINISM (1990’s – present)

I. PROPONENT

REBECCA WALKER

Rebecca was born on November 17, 1969 in Jackson, Mississippias Rebecca Leventhal-- the daughter
of Alice Walker, an African- Americanwriter. She’s an American writer, feminist, and activist. When she was
15, Walker decided to change her surname from Leventhal to Walker, her mother's surname. After high school,
she studied at Yale University, where she graduated cum laude in 1992. Walker identifies as black, white, and
Jewish, which is also the title of her memoir, published in 2001.

II. ETHICAL CONCEPT

Third-wave feminism began in the early 1990s arising as a response to perceived failures of the second
wave, and it addressed the backlash against initiatives and movements created by the second wave.

The third wave is an "individual movement" in the sense that its purpose includes redefining what it is to
be a feminist.The movement of third-wave feminism focused less on laws and the political process and more on
individual identity. The movement of third-wave feminism is said to have arisen out of the realization that
women are of many colors, ethnicities, nationalities, religions and cultural backgrounds. The prominent issues
in this wave are:

1. Gender violence has become a central issue for third-wave feminists. Gender violence is any kind of
violence which primarily affects women, such as rape, domestic violence, and sexual harassment. In this
Rebecca Walker published an article entitled "Becoming the Third Wave" in which she stated: "I am not
a post-feminism feminist. I am the third wave”, because of the Hill vs. Thomas sexual case harassment.
2. One of feminism's primary goals is to demonstrate that access to contraception and abortion are women's
reproductive rights.
3. Reclaiming derogatory terms
4. Rape
5. Other issues - Third-wave feminism regards race, social class, transgender rights, and sexual liberation
as central issues.

CRITICISM

LACK OF COHESION

The first wave fought for and gained the right for women to vote. The second wave fought for the right
for women to have access to and equal opportunity in the workforce. Lastly, this kind of wave is lack of cause
for the third wave feminism and it is seen as an extension of the second wave.

III. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Lueptow, K. (2017). Feminism Now: What the Third Wave is Really About - Everyday Feminism.

(Dobson, Gorospe and Jeong, 2017)

Dorey-Stein, C. (2017). A Brief History: The Three Waves of Feminism

En.wikipedia.org. (2017). Rebecca Walker.

Being Feminist. (2017). Today’s Feminism: A Brief Look at Third-Wave Feminism.

En.wikipedia.org. (2017). Third-wave feminism.

 Kantian Ethics

I.

Immanuel Kant was a German Philosopher who is a central figure in modern philosophy.

Born: April 22 1724 Konigsberg, Prussia (Kaliningrad, Russia)

Died: February 12 1804 at the age of 79

Nationality: Prussian

Immanuel Kant was Prussian philosopher. He taught that the order we see in the universe really comes
from categories that our mind imposes on experience. In ethics, he taught that we should not be motivated by
happiness, but should act purely out of a motive of duty. This approach to ethics is called Deontological. The
search for happiness, he taught, made us dependent on the events of the world outside of ourselves and reduced
our inner freedom. His ethics is extremely format. He taught that in all our actions we should act in such a way
that our action could be universal model or rules.

II.

Deontological Moral Theory. According to these theories the rightness or wrongness of action does not
depend on their consequences but whether they fulfill our duty.

Kant believed that there was a supreme principle of morality and he referred to it as the Categorical
Imperative. It determines what our moral duties are.

He made a distinction between the things we ought to do morally and the things we ought to do to
others, non moral reason. He pointed out that most of the times, whether or not we ought to do something isn’t
really a moral choice instead its just contingent on our desires. Kant called it Hypothetical Imperative.

Hypothetical Imperative is a command that you should follow if you want something but its about
prudence rather than morality while Categorical Imperative is a command you must follow regardless of your
desires. It’s our moral obligations and Kant believed that they’re derived from pure reason.

Categorical Imperative can be understood by various formulation. Those are:

Formulation 1:

The Universalizability Principle

 “Act only according to that maxim which you can at the same time will that should become a universal
law without contradiction.”

Maxim- rule or principle of action

Universal Law- something that must always be done in similar situation.

Formulation 2:

The Formula of Humanity

“Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always another as an
end, and never as a mere means.”

Mere Means- To use it only for your own benefit, with no thought to the interest or benefit of the thing you’re
using.

Human exist for themselves so to treat someone as an end-in-herself means to recognize the humanity of
the person you’re encountering to realize that she has goals, values and interest on her own and you must
morally keep that in mind in your encounters with her.

Kant argued that proper rational application of the deontological imperative will lead us to moral truth
that is fixed and applicable to will moral agents.

Thus, we have two main duties that drives from categorical imperative(1.)the perfect duty to act on some
people as mere means (2.) the imperfect duty to act on some maxim that foster peoples end.

He believed that formulation 1 and 2 to be equivalent, though that each implied exactly the same duties.
We won’t concern ourselves with whether this is true.

III.

Could I rationally act on my maxim in the PSW? (n.d.). Retrieved November 18, 2017, from
http://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/ethics/kantian%20ethics.htm

MENDOZA, Jaycel Romero HUMN 8- Ethics

AB Political Science 3-1 Mr. Renato A. Agdalpen

 ARISTOTLE

I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Aristotle was an Ancient Greek Philosopher. He was the student of Plato. He became the teacher of
Alexander the Great. He also established a school in Athens named, the Lyceum.

II. ETHICAL STANDARDS

Aristotle focused on happiness and believed that the function of a human was to engage in an activity of
the soul in accordance with virtue. He also thought that there were two overriding virtues, the intellectual and
moral. The intellectual virtues he claimed were acquired by inheritance and education and the moral ones
through the imitation of practice and habit.

a.) ARISTOTLE’S ETHICS

The Good is that at which all things aim. The proper function or excellence of things is its virtue. The
human virtue is activity of the soul in accordance with virtue.

b.) HUMAN VIRTUE

The quality that seems distinctively human is the use of reason. The function of man then is the activity
of soul in accordance with reason.

Human virtue has two kinds, the intellectual and the moral virtues. Intellectual virtues are related
particularly to our professions while moral virtues is a virtue that is common to all humans but it may vary
according to our capacities also it is the outcome of habit.

c.) HAPPINESS
 According to Aristotle all human actions ultimately aim at one thing the highest good in human life
which is Eudamomia or simply means Happiness. It can be best understood as we seek things at its end,
purpose, or goal. It also come from developing a good character. Therefore, in order to be moral, one needs to
cultivate his virtues and flourish as a human being.

d.) GOOD CHARACTER

Aristotle believed that though virtues are natural it should be still acquired through practice and by
having role models. A good character can be happy if it has good thoughts, good acts and good habits.

e.) PRUDENCE

Prudence is the virtue of practical intelligence of knowing how to apply general principles in particular
situations. It is the ability to act so that principle will take a concrete form. Is not only a virtue but it is the
keystone to all virtues. Prudence is the virtue which is manifested in acting so that one’s adherence to other
virtues is exemplified in one’s actions.

f.) GOLDEN MEAN

Aristotle adopted the Golden mean principle. The virtue is located at the mean which is the right balance
between the two extremes, the extreme of excess and the extreme of deficiency. The morally good persons live
in a life of moderation which is in the mean. They should avoid the excess and deficiencies of behavior and let
them be governed by the use of reason. Here are the 12 virtues that can also be attributed to Aristotle.

1) Courage – bravery and valor

2) Temperance – self-control and restraint
3) Liberality – bigheartedness, charity and generosity
4) Magnificence – radiance, joie de vivre
5) Pride – self-satisfaction
6) Honor – respect, reverence, admiration
7) Good Temper – equanimity, level headedness
8) Friendliness – conviviality and sociability
9) Truthfulness – straightforwardness, frankness and candor
10) Wit – sense of humor – meaninglessness and absurdity
11) Friendship – camaraderie and companionship
12) Justice – impartiality, evenhandedness and fairness

III. REFERENCES

Burton, N. (2013) Aristotle on Happiness. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/ blog/hide-and-

seek/201301/aristotle-happiness

Tucker, K. (2015) Aristotle Virtue Ethics. Retrieved from http://slideplayer.com/slide/4677133/

Walls, D. (2015) Virtue Ethics. Retrieved from https://www.slideshare.net/davidmwalls/virtue- ethics-

28143092

Aquinas, R. (2012) Lesson 7 - virtue ethics – plato, Aristotle. Retrieved from https://www.slides

hare.net/aquinas_rs/lesson-7-virtue-ethics-plato-aristotle

Rayner, V. (2011) 12 Virtues Introduced by Aristotle – the master of those who know. Retrieved from
https://aesthetichealingmindset.wordpress.com/2011/06/12/4706/

JESSICA R. MENDOZA ETHICS

ABPS 3-1

I.SOCRATES

Socrates is a Greek Philosopher and the Father of Western Philosophy He was born on 469 BCE in
Athens, Greece. He has no recorded works yet he was one of history’s most influential philosophers. We know
of Socrates through the writings of his student Plato. Also, He was known for talking to anyone and engaging
them in philosophical debate.

II. ETHICAL CONCEPT

What Were Socrates' Beliefs on Ethics?

 Ethics are the norms by which acceptable and unacceptable behavior are measured. According to the
beliefs of the ancient Greek philosopher Socrates, one develops ethics through maturity, wisdom and love.
Socrates introduced the concept of teaching ethics and acceptable standards of conduct in 400 B.C. and has had
a profound and lasting impact on the course of Western philosophy and history ever since. He believed virtue
was found primarily in human relationships, love and friendship, not through material gains. For Socrates,
living a good life was more important than obtaining material wealth.

What is Virtue?

According to Socrates, Virtue is knowledge because: All living things aim for their perceived good. And
therefore if anyone does not know what is good, then he cannot do what is good because he will always aim for
mistaken good. BUT if someone knows what is good then he will do what is good, because he will aim for what
is good.

Socrates equated knowledge with virtue, which ultimately leads to ethical conduct. He believed that the
only life worth living was one that was rigorously examined. He looked for principles and actions that were
worth living by, creating an ethical base upon which decisions should be made. Socrates firmly believed that
knowledge and understanding of virtue, or "the good," was sufficient for someone to be happy. To him,
knowledge of the good was almost akin to an enlightened state. He believed that no person could willingly
choose to do something harmful or negative if they were fully aware of the value of life.

III. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ray, L (2017). What were Socrates beliefs on Ethics.http://www.classroom.synonym.com/what-were-socrates-

beliefs-on-ethics-12084753.html. Retrieved September 23,2017

Haber, K. (2013). “Socrates.” World History: Ancient and Medieval Eras. ABC-CLIO, 2013. Retrieved
September 23, 2017.

Sacks, D. (2013). “Socrates”. Encyclopedia of the Ancient Greek World, Revised Edition. Revised by Lisa R.
Brody. New York: facts On File, Inc., 2005. Ancient and Medieval History
Online.FactsonFile,Inc.http://www.Foweb.com?activelink2.asp?ItemID=WE49&iPin=EAGW0482&SingleRec
ord=True.Retrieved October 14,2017.

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2017). Socrates. http://www.iep.utm.edu/socrates Retrieved October

14,2017.

St. Thomas Aquinas

AQUINAS LIFE:

St Thomas Aquinas is an Italian Dominican theologian, recognized by the Roman Catholic Church as its
foremost Western Philosopher. He was also called as San Tommaso d’ Aquino or Angelic Doctor. His own
conclusions was developed from Aristotelian premises because in the 3rd century, Aristotle’s works were
rediscovered in the West and translated into Latin. These translations became an integral part of some of
Aquinas most important writing, notably in the Metaphysics of Personality, Theologiae and Providence.

In his early years, Thomas was placed in the monastery of Monte Cassino near his home as an oblate
and his family doubtless hoped that he would someday became Abbot (a man who is a head of monastery).
After nine years in the sanctuary of spiritual and cultural life, he was forced to return to his family when the
emperor expelled the monks for the reason of being too obedient to the pope. He first encountered the scientific
and philosophical works that being translated from Greek and Arabic in the University of Naples. Thomas work
accomplished an evangelical awakening to the need for cultural and spiritual renewal not only in the lives of
individual men but also throughout the church. He was influenced both by evangelism of St. Francis of Assisi
and by the devotion to scholarship of St. Dominic.

ETHICAL PRINCIPLE:

According to St. Thomas Aquinas there are four moral virtues which he called Cardinal Virtues. These
four virtues are called cardinal because all other virtues are recognized under them and hinge upon them. These
cardinal virtues are the following:
1st. Prudence

2nd. Justice

3rd. Fortitude

4th. Temperance

Prudence is the mother of all the virtues. It is a virtue by which a person recognizes his moral duty and the
good means to accomplish it. No other virtue can contradict what is prudent. Therefore what is prudent is
substantially what is good and prudence is the measure of justice, temperance and fortitude. Prudence is
essential for the formation and operation of one’s conscience. But, how can we become a prudent person? The
key is that one must know God’s truth. Remember one cannot do what is good if one does not know the
principles of truth and goodness. How can we prudently examine a situation and determine a course of action?
In order to prudently examine a situation and determine a course of action one must keep in mind the three
aspects of prudence.

1. Memoria
2. Docilitas
3. Solertia

Memoria means having a true to being memory which contains real things and events as they really are
now and were in the past. Everyone must learn from their experiences. What are the benefits of
remembering what is to be done or avoided from past experiences? The benefits are the following:

1. It helps to alert us to the occasions and causes of sin.

2. To prevent us from making the same mistake twice.
3. Inspire us to do what is good.

Docilitas as of means, a person must have a docility, an open mindedness which makes the person
receptive to the advice and counsel of other people. Seek and heed the wise counsel of those who are older,
more experienced and more knowledgeable.

Solertia is sagacity. Sagacity as of means is having a clear vision of the situation at hand, foresees the
goal and consequences of an action, considers the special circumstances involved and overcome the
temptation of injustice, cowardice and intemperance. With solertia, a person acts in timely manner with due
reflection and consideration to decide what is good and how to do the good.

Justice is a habit whereby “a man renders to each one is due with constant and perpetual will”. First
duty in justice is toward God. We have the duty to pray, worship and obey God and “whom we must love
 above all things” and make sacrifices for the sake of his love. Second duty of justice is toward our
neighbour. A person must not only refrain from doing evil toward their neighbour, but also do what is good
toward his neighbour. Respect the rights of each person and establish relationship which promotes equity
among people and build up the common good. Justice has three dimensions namely; commutative or
reciprocal justice, distributive justice, legal or general justice.

Virtue of fortitude enables a person to stand firm against and endure the hardships of life, and to remain
steadfast in pursuing what is good. Genuine fortitude does not entail making sacrifices or risking one’s life
arbitrarily or foolishly. Genuine fortitude is always exercised in accord with reason. Fortitude strengthens
the individuals to resist temptation, overcome personal weaknesses, and make sacrifices for what is good.
Fortitude does not mean that a person is immune from fear. Instead, a person with fortitude recognizes fear
but does not allow fear to prevent him or her from doing what is good or worse to do what is evil.

Temperance enables a person to keep his passions and emotions under the control of reason. It
moderates a person’s attraction to pleasure and gives balance in the use of created goods. It also involves
using those goods in a good way. Temperance has its two essential parts.

1. Sense of shame (prevents person from acting intemperately and sinfully)

2. Sense of honour (inspires a person to act temperately and meritoriously)

CONCLUSION:

The four cardinal virtues are essential to anyone’s spiritual life. However because of the sin inherited
from our first parents Adam and Eve; “it is easier said than done”. But through the practice of these virtues
together with assistance of God’s grace, prayers and angels we can meet the challenge in Matthew 5:48

“YOU MUST ACCORDIGNLY BE PERFECT OR COMPLETE AS YOUR HEAVENLY FATHER IS

PERFECT”

REFERENCES:

St. Thomas Aquinas life: Slideshare.Net

Thomas Ethical Principle: Standford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy

Sub details for cardinal virtues: Plato.edu

Aira D. Mojica

ABPS 3-1
THE FIRST WAVE: LIBERAL FEMINISM

First wave liberal feminism tackles about how the historical development of feminism evolved.
As we all know that “Feminism” is being defined as women and man treated as equals. It is also with regards as
to what women can only exercise and can do wherein the past they believed that man is more capable in doing
something than woman.

The main focus here is about the entitlement to certain rights and opportunities of women.
Feminism, it’s aimed is establishing equal rights and legal protection for women. Advocates gender equality for
women and campaigns for women’s rights. All the movements that work to obtain women’s right should be
considered as “Feminist movement” and those people who fight for the rights of women called “Feminist”.
While “protofeminist” they are used to describe as earlier movements.

First wave characterized by preoccupation w/ equal rights and its most significant
accomplishments winning for European and American women the right of suffrage. For Mary Wollstonecraft,
an extant feminist argues that for a woman to be full and judicious participants of society, they must be
educated on the same level as men. Wollstonecraft also says that the characteristics that are traditionally
imputed to female sex are craftiness, vanity and hypocrisy. Women are the primary caretakers of the family
wherein the limited education and undesirable values that a woman learned and inculcate would transfer to their
children and to the community. According to Jean-Jacques Rosseau there is two divergent kind of education
“Emile” as a boy and “Sophie” as a girl. Emile encourages becoming independent and self sufficient while
Sophie to be trained solely in pleasing Emile. And lastly, For John Stuart Mill who profound the philosophy of
liberalism “liberty” Mill acknowledges that by the law averages men tend to perform better in many ways than
woman. In 19th century men had more access to educations and economic opportunities than women who had
more civil liberties. But Mill argues that this state does not justify any law prohibiting any member of the
society or the less privileged or less capable class from attempting to do something. Mill supports women’s
freedom to do as they wish as long as they are not harming anybody.

I. Philosopher

Laozi “Old Master” or popularly known as Li Er is the principal figure of the philosophy called Taoism. He works at an
archive at the imperial court. It is said that he was tired of the corruption there so he left the capital travelling to the
western border of China never to be seen again. Upon his leaving he left the philosophical book called “Tao Te Ching “ or
the “Book of the Way “ or “the Path of Nature”.
II. Philosophy

The Tao Te Ching consists of teachings on how to live according to nature. It teaches people on how to live simply ,
banishing arrogance and ego, and live a good life. According to the book because of the “ming“ or the names , people got
confused on what is important and what is not. They started to compare between high and low, rich and poor , ugly and
beautiful so instead of focusing on the real essence of life they try to achieve what they the society thought is “beautiful”.
He said that people should live according to the “path” through the practice of “Wu Wei” or effortless action. Wu Wei is
following the Tao or the path of nature. He said that people should just go with the flow and avoid forcing things too
much that would lead them to suffer. Forgetting the “ming”, banishing vanity and arrogance and living according to
nature is the key concept of Taoism.

III.

References:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taoism

https://personaltao.com/teachings/taoism/taoism-101/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/taoism/

CHERILYN ROSAS
ABPS 3-1

ARTHUR SCHOPENHAUER: PESSIMISM PHILOSOPHY

PESSIMISM derives from the Latin "pessimus" means "the worst". It is a not a state of mind or a philosophical
disposition, but rather it is worldwide that seek to face up to the distasteful realisties of the world and elliminate
irrational hopes and expectation which may lead to undesirable outcomes.

ARTHUR SCHOPENHAUER was born on February 22, 1788 to a rather wealthy couple. Year 1799, he started
playing flute and in the year 1805, it is thought that his father committed suicide, he had been found dead,
floating through a river.

Schopenhauer is a German philosopher known for his atheism and pessimism- in fact he is the most prominent
pessimist in entire western philosophical tradition. He articulated a worldwide view of the value of existence.
He also believed that desires cause suffering and, subsequently, he favored ascetism- a lifestyle negating desires
or denying the will. The attainment of a goal or desire results in satisfaction however the frustration of such
attainment results suffering. Since existence is marked by want, satisfaction of this want is unsustainable,
existence is characterized by suffering. This conclusion holds for all of nature (inanimate natures and human
beings) serving the relief from suffering, the use of reason only magnifies the degree we suffer. Thus all
ordinary pursuit of mankind are not only fruitless but illusionary insofar as they oriented toward satisfying an
insatiable blind will.

The World As Will and Presentationwhich first appeared in December 1818 (the second edition in 1844 added a
second volume of essays; the third edition appeared in 1859) is one of Schopenhauer most influential work that
examines the role of humanities main motivation which he called Will. Heargued in that work that everything in
the world is an expression of a goalless, purposeless, and insatiable striving to be, which he denominated “will”
or “will to life.” This implies that everything in nature struggles to exist, a state of affairs that makes conflict
and strife constant and inevitable. Yet it is not this struggle that makes existence problematic for Schopenhauer.
A world of struggling physical forces is simply a world of change. Existence becomes problematic with the
appearance of animal life, the appearance of conscious beings that become aware of their frustrated willing,
beings that experience boredom, pain, suffering, and death. This will is an aimless blind striving which can
never be fully satisfied, hence life is essentially dissatisfaction. Refer to his another writing "The Will to Life".
The Will is not a rational thinking but simply a foundation of our natural instinct and drives.

Since an existence is insatiable striving, and insatiable striving is suffering. Schopenhauer concludes that non-
existence is preferable to existence. However, death cause of suicide not end one's suffering but only terminate
the form of one suffering takes. He conclude the proper response to eliminate suffering, which the goal of
human life is to renounce one's own desire.

REFERENCES

Wicks, R. (2017, May 11). Arthur Schopenhauer. Retrieved November 10, 2017,

(n.d.). Retrieved November 10, 2017, from http://www.iep.utm.edu/schopenh/

What Is Pessimism? The Philosophy At The Heart Of True Detective. (2016, January 08). Retrieved November
17, 2017, from http://www.thecritique.com/articles/what-is-pessimism-the-philosophy-at-the-heart-of-true-
detective/

Sesma, Ma. Petrecia Sofia R.

ABPS 3-1
201511180

KUNG FU TZU

I. BACKGROUND
 There are limited knowledge and readings about Kung Fu Tzu, mostly known as
Confucius, despite him being popular and mostly they have weak groundings. He is known as “
Great Master Kung” to his disciples. It is said that Kung Fu Tzu was born on 551 BC in China,
some said he is Lao Tzu’s student. According to history, Kung Fu tzu served the government
with different positions such as the Minister of Crime under Duke Ding their connection ended
when the duke become lavish and corrupt.
II. ETHICAL CONCEPT
A moral and ethical system aimed at human development. Confucianism become a prominent
base in the culture of many countries in East Asia and around the world. Confucius emphasizes
humanism in most of his teachings showing his interest and concern to human nature and their
welfare. Human Nature to Confucius explains that every person is potentially good there is just a
need for education. He also introduced the idea of Decree of Heaven wherein heaven serves as the
author of the moral law that our actions are straighten due to the concept of having heaven and hell
and our deeds are evaluated along with us as we die. He also mentioned the idea about destiny,
saying that one’s place in life is beyond human control and comprehension. He also said that we are
all potentially benevolent in terms of our actions and that we attain happiness and joy for we follow
the way of heaven, the morality within the good and the norms of the Heaven as per se, we human
beings exercise our own freedom. It is our own choice whether to do the right thing or not.
Confucius focused on human’s unique character and claims that one must exercise civic duty,
honor to parents and obedience. His concepts are inclined to ethical and political ideas. Along with
this concepts he introduced the concept of “The Golden Rule” - never impose on others what you
would not choose for yourself, extracted from his Analects. Variations of the golden rule of
Confucius appear in nearly every major world religion and in most other belief systems as well. It
has been said that just by living by this one rule you can transform your life By understanding it
Confucius stated that: (1) One must live authentically. Be responsible for your actions if you are
really concerned with your surroundings. (2) In order to genuinely change the way you act, you need
to go deep, by meditation. (3) Start small. And lastly (4) be practical.
Confucius used and ethic system commonly referred to as ‘Virtue Ethics’ in which character is
the primary emphasis, self-cultivation is the aim. Confucius based his system of ethics on six virtues:
xi, zhi li, yi, wen and ren. Each of this attributes has a different meaning and focus, allowing one
person to focus on and identify an area of improvement.
1. Xi(learning). Someone who medidates on the concept of Xi is one who has a natural
capacity or desire to learn. This virtue is important for many reasons, but probably the
most important is due to the danger of ignorance. One who is ignorant or does not desire
 to learn is on danger of leading a foolish existence and spreading folly to other people.
The act of learning and living for wisdom brings with it virtue and a meaningful life.
2. Zhi(character). The closest translation of zhi is the substance of which one is made, how
a person portrays himself to others. This can refer to the physical construction of a
person. Both zhi and xi state that a person is neither created good or bad, but is free to
choose how he or she will learn, grow and progress.
3. Li(community). Li is all about community and one’s interaction and responsibilities
toward those around us. It is mostly about how people behave toward each other and how
they treat one another. This concept is closely related to fairness and justice in the
community. If a person is more fair and just, the more virtues will spread and bring about
a more and just society.
4. Yi(morality). There are many connotations from this simple definition, such as
righteousness and duty. Yi basically comes down to right action or the treatment to others
in the right way.
5. Wen(self-development). Wen is all about leisure and self-development. Within any
society, pursuits such as art, music, poetry and other types of recreation or self-
improvement is important. Wen is the concept of spreading beauty and meaning through
development pursuits. However, wen is not interested to such pursuits if it is only for sel-
gratification and if virtue is not expressed. Moral themes should be embedded in the
manifestation of creative forms.
6. Ren(benevolence). It is considered as the highest virtue in Confucianism. It is associated
with benevolence, love, humanness and the summation of all other virtues. A person who
practices the virtues of Ren derives his identity from his contribution and encourages
others to strive for it.
III. REFERENCES

Beck, Sanderson. (2005). Confucius, Mencius and Xun-zi Confucius. Retrieved on August 22,
2017, from http://www.san.beck.org/EC14-Confucian.html

Ross, K. L., Ph. D. (2012). Confucius( K'ung-fu-tzu or Kongfuzi). Retrieved on August 22,
2017, from http://www.friesian.com/confuci.htm

Sipper, J. (n.d.). Confucian Virtue Ethics: Definition & Theory. Retrieved on September 3,
2017, from http://study.com/academy/lesson/confucian-virtue-ethics-definition-theory.html
 Waxman , R. (n.d.). Ethics of Confucius . Retrieved on August 22, 2017, from
http://www.robwaxman.com/

Sison, Ruth C.

Martin Luther Ethical Concept-Non violence is the road to freedom

“...beat us and leave us half dead, and we will still love you. But we will soon wear you down by our
capacity to suffer. And in winning freedom we will so appeal to your heart and conscience that we will win you
in the process.” –Dr. Martin Luther King

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Is such a great person who teaches us to value the sacredness of existence,
arguing against capital punishment, war, police, brutality, and other forms of violence. He was a chief leader of
the Civil Rights movement and a president of Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), he is
regarded as the main voice of the movement and one in the position of great agency and responsibility.

The principle of nonviolence by King founded when during the historic bus boycott in Montgomery,
Ala. Rosa Parks who is a black-African broke the segregation law as she refused to sit on the back of the bus
causes her to be arrested. The African-American leadership entitles King to lead the campaign.

Martin Luther King Jr., proposes Gandhi’s method of nonviolent resistance in Christian language as the
basis for the boycott. He aims for peace and brotherhood, take away discrimination as he distinguished a set of
just and unjust laws whereas it is in the case of the American code that the majority inflicts on the minority that
they have no role in enacting because they don’t have the right to vote making the legislative bodies who made
these laws were not democratically elected. He then insisted civil disobedience or nonviolence resistance as he
stated that means “the means must be pure as end and immoral destructive means cannot bring about moral and
constructive ends.”

He then defines and named the so called “The Triple Evils: Poverty, Racism, and Militarism.” This
Triple Evil as he discusses is the forms of violence that is in a dreadful cycle, they are interrelated and causes as
the hindrance for us to live in the Beloved Community. Poverty- unemployment, hunger, homelessness,
illiteracy, and such makes up the word, for King, we should set up an all out war against this evil, there are
ways to get rid of this w should have to be comprehensive nation, because for King he believes that no nation or
even individual can be great if it does not have a concern for “the least of these.” Racism-ethnic conflicts,
discrimination, prejudice, and such is just an arrogant assertion that one race is dominant and the minority will
stand submissively to the majority. This evil divides the nation, it causes conflict this separates not only
physical body, but also the minds and spirit where the truth is we all equal and there is no need for that. Last
one is militarism- war, drugs, abuse, crime, human trafficking, terrorism and such. King held on to the belief
that as long as nation continues to spend their money for defence than on program of social uplift is
approaching spiritual deaths.

However in order to work against with the triple evils he lay down Six Principles of Nonviolence: First,
nonviolence is a way of life for the courageous people. Nonviolence is not for the weak, maybe you are passive
physically but inside you’re mind you are strongly active, constantly seeking that you’re opponent was wrong.
Second, nonviolence aim to win friendship and understanding, in a way that you will express your protest to
boycotts, but it is not the end your primary goal is to awaken the moral shame in the opponent that leads to
understanding because nonviolence is a creation of the Beloved Community while for violence this will leads to
tragic bitterness. Third, nonviolence seeks to defeat injustice not the people. If the number two is vague, then it
is clearly states here that the evil action of the opponent is the one needed to be defeat through the use of
nonviolence resister, because human is just victims of evil. Fourth, nonviolence holds that suffering can educate
and transform, as what I have quoted above it seeks to accept suffering without retaliation, to accept blows from
the opponent without striking back. Fifth, nonviolence chooses love instead of hate, the center of this principle
is to cut the chain of hatred and that is to understand, and seek redemption towards the other people. And lastly,
nonviolence believes that the universe is on the side of justice. His philosophy is rooted on hope, to trust that
God is a God of justice.

King applies way for nonviolent social change: Information gathering, learning everything to address the
issue. Education, educates everyone regarding the issue. Personal Commitment, it takes time for social change,
we must commit ourselves to do hard long term goal, prepare ourselves for rejection. Negotiations, a win-win
strategy, propose a way to resolve to your opponent. Direct Action, to force the opponent to deal him with the
issue and ways to resolve injustice, and Reconciliation, we must reconcile to our opponents so that we all can
begin to heal and move closer to the Beloved Community.

A Beloved Community for him is not a utopian goal but rather deals more with the realistic view of
global harmony, as for him the community must be trained to do the nonviolent resister or principle of
nonviolence, it is a vision on which every one of us can cooperate and share blessings of resources. The
Beloved Community will not tolerate poverty, hunger, and illiteracy because the International standards govern
by the government of human decency will prohibit it. The racism will be vanished, prejudice will no longer
exist instead let brotherhood and sisterhood will be prioritized. The International disputes will be resolved by a
peaceful conflict resolution and the reconciliation of adversaries in the replacement of military power. Peace
and justice will prevail over war and military conflict. It is not to say that within the so-called Beloved
Community there exist no conflicts, whereas conflict is inevitable, but through cooperation then it will be
resolved peacefully by the determined commitment to the nonviolence.

For it is a great help, that ethical concept of Martin Luther King Jr. is on the edge to achieve a peaceful
and lasting community, it really does the road to freedom is nonviolence, let love and values be uplift, let us
allow suffering because within this we shall harvest our labour of hard works.

Reference:

King, M.L., Dr. (1986). Love, Law, and, Civil Disobedience. In J.M. Wahington (Eds.), A Testament of Hope:
The Essential Writings of Martin Luther King, Jr. (pp. 43-53). San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row

Dear, J. (2012). What Martin Luther King Jr. Can Teach Us About Nonviolence. http:// www.ncronline.org

Karenga, M. Dr. (2011) Living The Legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: A Sacred Narrative And Model. Los
Angeles Sentinels

www.thekingcenter.org

XUNZI (Hsun Tzu)

I. Philosopher

His original name was XunKuang. Xunzi was born in the state of Zhao in north-central China around
310 BCE and died on c.230. The exact dates of Xunzi’s life and career are uncertain.He is also known as Xun
Qing. Xunzi, along with Confucius and Mencius, was one of the three great early architects of Confucian
philosophy. He characterizes human nature as bad.

II. Ethical Concept

Mencius is known for the slogan “human nature is good,” but Xunzi is known for its opposite, “human
nature is bad.” Human nature at birth are selfish, anarchical and antisocial. He also said that man is born with
desire. He argues that if people were good by nature, there would be no need for ritual and social norms.Xunzi
claims that all human beings experience certain desires, primarily desires for bodily satisfaction and comfort
and for social honor and positionthat we cannot reduce or eliminate these desires. Without study of the Way,
people's desires will run rampant, and they will inevitably find themselves in conflict in trying to satisfy their
desires. Xunzi envisioned that humanity was once in a state of nature reminiscent of Hobbes.
 III. Bibliography
 Robins, Dan, "Xunzi", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2017 Edition), Edward N.
Zalta (ed.), <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/xunzi/>.
 Sampaolo, Marco, "Xunzi", Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Biography of Xunzi, 2017,
<https://www.britannica.com/biography/Xunzi/>
 Elsten, David, “Xunzi”, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ISSN 2161-0002,
<http://www.iep.utm.edu/xunzi/#SH3a>

TAPIA, PRINCESS MAE L. HUMN 8; ETHICS

ABPS 3-1 WRITTEN REPORT

DISCUSSION: DIOGENES IN HIS PHILOSOPHY ABOUT CYNICISM

I. PHILOSOPHER:

Diogenes is the son of Tresius, a rich money-changer who lived in Sinope. It is said that he was exiled
from Sinope for corrupting the coins of his father produced. Diogenes was relocated to Athens soon after. He
lived as a beggar in the street of Athens, living semi-naked in a tub by the temple of Cybele, making virtue of
his extreme poverty.

He was attracted by the ascetic teaching of Antisthenes, a student of Socrates. Diogenes became
Antisthenes’ pupil and rapidly surpassed his master, both in reputation and in the austerity of life. He was the
philosopher who avoided all earthly pleasures. He also showed his rejection of ‘normal’ ideas about human
decency by eating in the street, urinating on those who insulted him, defecating in the theatre, and pointing at
people with his middle finger. He was a self-appointed public scold whose mission was to demonstrate to the
ancient Greeks that their civilization is regressive.

As the stories have it, Diogenes was captured by pirates and was sold as a slave in Crete to a native
resident name Xeniades, who was impressed with his wit and vision, and employed him as a tutor to his two
sons. He lived in Corinth for the rest of his life, which he devoted to preaching the doctrines of virtuous self-
control. At one point, he met Alexander the great and impressed the great leader with his ingenuity and wisdom,
causing Alexander to remark, “If I were not Alexander, then I should wish to be Diogenes”.

He died in 323 B.C at Corinth, alleged variously to have held his breath, or had became ill from eating
raw octopus, or to have suffered an infected dog bite. He left instructions to be thrown his body on the animals
so that they could feast on his body.
 II. ETHICAL CONCEPT:

Along with Antisthenes and Crate of Thebes, Diogenes is considered one of the founders of the school
of Cynicism. The doctrine of Cynicism holds that the purpose of life is to live of virtue in agreement with
nature. This involves rejecting all conventional desires for health, wealth, power and fame, and living a life free
from all possessions and property.

Diogenes took Cynicism to its logical extremes and dominates the story of Cynicism like no other. He
dedicated his life to self-sufficiency, austerity, and shamelessness. His lifestyle and habits were never
gratuitous, but were used to subtly illustrate his contempt for human achievements, social value and institutions,
and to point out the irrationality of accepted conventions.

As a philosopher, Diogenes was taken surprisingly serious, despite his shocking tactics. He apparently
proved to the satisfaction of the Stoics who came after him, that happiness has nothing to do with a person’s
material circumstances, and they claimed him to be a ‘Sophos’ or a wise man. An exile and an outcast, a man
with no social identity, Diogenes certainly made a mark on his contemporaries, and his story continues to
fascinate students of human nature.

III. REFERENCES:

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from http://www.iep.utm.edu/diogsino/

Diogenes. Retrieved from

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/greece/hetairai/diogenes.html

Cynicism - By Branch / Doctrine - The Basics of Philosophy. Retrieved from

http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_cynicism.html

Diogenes of Sinope > By Individual Philosopher > Philosophy. Retrieved from

http://www.philosophybasics.com/philosophers_diogenes.html

PLATO’S ETHICAL CONCEPT

 Plato (427 - 347 B.C.)
Plato is the famous student of Socrates and the well known teacher of Aristotle. He is also the founder of the
renowned school, the Academy. In his time it was the school of learning and were philosophical ideas are
presented.

 PLATO’S ETHICAL CONCEPT

Aside for the fact that it is influenced most likely by Socrates and the Ancient Greek beliefs, is that he’s ethical
concept also revolves around virtue - Virtue Ethics.

There was the concept of Eudaemonia on Ancient Greek belief that means good living or good soul and the
people who possess it have better and more comfortable life.

Plato looks unto the world metaphysically, so he believed that this earthly world is not just the existing world
and it was evident in one of his famous works - The Allegory of the Cave, The Republic - where he said that the
world we live in is just “a mere shadow of the real world” and consequently, the Theory of Forms was introduced.

 The Theory of Forms has three parts:

1. Reason (Head)
2. Spirited (Chest)
3. Appetite (Stomach)
Each part has its own function that will work as a whole. First, the Reason which pertains to the head because the
reason is the one that must rule in the human act. In the Republic, Plato stated that in a state it is the Philosopher King
that must play the role of the reason because the Philosopher King have all the knowledge that he can apply to lead and
can use to rule a state. Next is the Spirited, that was portrayed by soldiers that must be a help to the Reason to control
the Appetite having moral strength and bravery. Lastly, the Appetite. Stomach because appetite is where the desires and
pleasures of a person lies that must be controlled and be in moderation (workers).

From the statement above we can say that the Reason is upon Wisdom; Spirited have Courage; and the Appetite
must hold Temperance. And when these three parts worked together, Justice will happen.

Now, these three parts in the state also exist in the same way with the Three Parts of the Soul that have its
corresponding virtue that presents Plato’s Virtue Ethics.

The Reason’s corresponding virtue is Prudence - it is the careful judgment with the use of wisdom to know and to
apprehend the goodness or badness or if an act is right or wrong.

For Spirited - it is the Courage or Fortitude, a virtue that tells someone what ought to afraid or not be afraid of.

As to Appetite, its virtue ought to be the Temperance that moderates and controls the appetite because if
someone’s pleasure would be paramount it will result to injustice.
 Part of the Soul Corresponding Virtue

Reason Prudence

Spirited Courage

Appetite Temperance

Wisdom is the practice of the knowledge you have. Courage is the driving factor of what you must or must not be
afraid of. Temperance is the practice of controlling one’s feelings or pleasure.

And if the three virtues were identified, known its function, and will be in harmony, the fourth virtue will come up -
Justice.

Therefore, when reason is reasoning, having wisdom that presides over a conduct; spirited have courage; and
appetite holds temperance, it is Justice. As Justice is having order when every part is working together. So if a man
possesses the four virtues he will achieve the concept Eudaemonia then he will be living the life with a good soul
providing him a better, more comfortable and pleasant life.

 References:
1. Curtis, M. (Ed.). (1981). The Great political theories. New York City: HarperCollins Publisher.
2. Frede, D. (2013). Plato’s ethics. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-ethics/
3. Plato’s Ethics: Virtue and health of the soul. Retrieved from
https://campus.aynrand.org/campus/globals/transcripts/platos-ethics-virtue-and-the-health-of-the-soul
4. Parry, R. (2014). Ancient ethical theory. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-ancient/