Philo 13 - Quiz 1 & 2

for August 27, 2026 and September 14, 2026

Moral Philosophy

the attempt to achieve a systematic understanding of the nature of morality and what it requires of us — in Socrate's words, "how we ought to live," and why

The Benefits Argument

"if we can benefit someone, without harming anyone else, we ought to do so. transplanting the organs would benefit the other children without harming Baby Theresa. therefore, we ought to transplant the organs"

The Argument That We Should Not Use People as Means

"it is wrong to use people as means to other people's ends"

The Argument from the Wrongness of Killing

“it is wrong to kill one person to save another"

The Argument That We Should Save as Many as We Can

choice between saving one or letting both die

The Argument for the Sanctity of Human Life

all human life is precious, regardless of age, race, social class — this is at the core of the Western moral tradition

The Argument from the Wrongness of Discriminating against the Handicapped

"handicapped people should be given the same respect and the same rights as everyone else"

The Slippery Slope Argument

“if we accept any sort of mercy killing, we will have slid down into an inevitable thinking that makes us view life as cheap”

Two Main Points About the Nature of Morality

- moral judgements must be backed by good reasons

- morality requires the impartial consideration of each individual's interests

Moral Reasoning

- it is first and foremost, a matter of consulting reason

- the morally right thing to do, in any circumstance, is whatever there are the best reasons for doing

The Requirement of Impartiality

- each individual's interests are equally important; from within the moral point of view, there are no privileged persons

- rules out any scheme that treats the members of particular groups as somehow morally inferior

- closely connected with the point that moral judgments must be backed by good reasons

(The Minimum Conception of) Morality

- the effort to guide one's conduct by reason — that is, to do what there are the best reasons for doing

- while giving equal weight to the interests of each individual who will be affected by what one does

Freedom

- something that AI doesn’t have

- it is the ability to filter the instinctive response

- always coupled with rationality

- not just from instinctive responses but more importantly, to step back, assess the situation, to think for oneself

Rationality / Rational Thinking

- ability to do critical thinking

- one of the three foundations of ethics alongside freedom and phronesis

- not just knowledge of right or wrong and to make well thought-out decisions

Invisible Influence

subliminal effects and influences

Phronesis

- "practical wisdom" or the ability to make good judgments and sound decisions in daily life

- prudence or practical judgement: to apply values appropriately to individual situations

The “Why” of Ethics

not the act itself; it is the reason behind the act, which is usually not thought about, but is more important than the act itself

Moral Standards

standards that deal with matters that we think are of:

1) serious consequence

2) based on good reasons and not on authority

3) that override self-interest

4) that are based on impartial considerations, and

5) whose transgression is associated with feelings of guilt and shame and with a special vocabulary

Morality

- how we ought to live (Socrates)

- pertains to standards of right and wrong; usually inherited from a community (often unexamined)

Ethics

- studies standards of right and wrong, the act of decision-making, the nature of the agent who makes the decision

- entails a reflective distance to critically examine standards and how we should decide

- not about theoretical knowledge, but the application of values and knowledge of right and wrong

- to the context of our everyday life; mindful of the specificity and particularity of each ethical dilemma

Dilemma

an experience where an agent is confused about the right decision to make because there are several competing values which seem equally important and urgent

Cultural Relativism

- challenges our belief in the objectivity and universality of moral truth

- there is no such thing as universal truth in ethics; there are only the various cultural codes, and nothing more

Cultural Differences

- different cultures have different moral codes

- therefore, there is no objective "truth" in morality; right and wrong are only matters of opinion, and opinions vary from culture to culture

Is agency (or ability to act) endless?

It’s not endless nor boundless; it’s balanced with sociality

Phases of life

• obedience

• rebellion

• critical acceptance

Esse est co-esse

“to be is to be with”

• the older we grow, the more mindful we are to be part of that society

• the more integrated we are, the more receptive we are to societal standards

Culture

• (loosely) the way we live our lives

• shared beliefs and values, customs, practices, and social behavior of a particular nation or group of people

• there are many that influence me

What goes into the culture/s that define me?

• geography of my environmental flatland, mountainous, etc.

• social media apps, platforms

• political structures, laws, economic development of my country, my city, etc.

• religion or absence of

• education — where I am schooled

• family

• generation

Layers of Culture

• outer

• middle

• core

Outer (layer of culture)

• visible manifestations; explicit products

  • artifacts; buildings, clothes, food, markets, cemeteries, works of art, road system, etc.

  • we usually focus too much on these when we speak of culture or visit other countries as tourists

Middle (layer of culture)

• rules and values (underneath the rules; reasons for the norms and practices)

  • bows, burying the dead, norms/rules

    • ex. value: respect

Core (layer of culture)

• the “world view”; more hidden than the values

  • ex. the Volksgeist, the unique spirit of a people which give rise to the rules and individual values; largely assumed by the native but difficult to articulate

    • e.g., the deeply theistic and family oriented Filipino

What is the first extreme position (to culture)?

• respect divergent cultures, no matter what they value

  • “don’t be judgemental”

What is the second extreme position (to culture)?

• the pushback; intolerance to other cultures, to changes

Why is there a rise in exclusionist movements?

• racism and extreme nationalism, nativism (neo-nationalism)

  • e.g. US anti-immigration, Brexit (2020) and counter-globalization movements

• rise of rightist governments

  • e.g. NL, Slovakia, Austria, Hungary

• authoritarianism

  • e.g. Cambodia, Myanmar, Israel

• sexism

• fundamentalism (to counter moral decay and modernization)

• social media bubbles

• “we’re done with political correctness”

• only one truth: “back to traditional values”

Why did Trump happen?

• one issue electorate

  • X all races are equal

  • X there are more than two genders

  • X all genders are equal

  • X abortion should be legal

• Americans were not ready for progressive values

• different values for the loud and muffled voices

Culture influences morality, BUT since cultures differ, should we conclude that moral standards also differ?

• cultures seem to have different moral standards, but in reality they could differ ONLY in the way they manifest values (dressing)

• the values underneath the practices or dressings or manifestations COULD be the same

  • not all the time

    • e.g., tradition/religious rituals that can violate human rights / harm people (ex. FGM)

    • yes, values beneath could be expressed differently BUT there are cultures that violate values that uphold human equality and dignity (ex. 1990s Rwandan genocide against Tutsis that killed 1M mostly men, left a trail of rape, slaughter of children

  • different cultures could appreciate the same set of values but have different prioritization of these values

    • e.g., abortion laws and value it chose over competing values

• laws should reflect the ethos of a people

  • that is not always the case because of a flawed political and electoral system

    • when you have lawmakers who create laws for their own benefit, the effect will be that these laws will affect the ideas of the people

  • once enacted, laws can change and shape culture instead of the other way around; so, we must watch what laws are proposed in our cities and country

    • e.g., Belgium and its divorce law (1 in 3 marriages end in divorce)

Why do cultures express the same moral standards differently?

• historical and moral exigencies

  • Callatians and Eskimos of the early 1900s

What is the claim of cultural/ethical relativists?

• there are NO values that cut across cultures

Ethical Relativism

• there are many cultures, thus there are many standards of right and wrong

• relativism holds that something is right for the people in a society if it accords with their moral standards, and wrong if it violates their moral standards

Anthropologists

• those who study the past to see how human beings will move towards their future

Sociologists

• those who study how human beings interact; patterns of behavior, etc.

Origins of the theory of Ethical Relativism

• anthropologists and sociologists observed through their research studies that different cultures have different moral codes/beliefs

  • what is right in one society could be wrong in another

Conclusion of Ethical Relativism in the argument of different moral codes

• What is moral is relative to a particular culture

  • There is NO objective or universal truth in ethics

Why is ER or CR not a correct position?

• Critique of the logical correctness (critique of form)

• Critique of its substance (what it says)

  • confuses dressing with values

  • there are universal human values

  • there will be no moral progress which we believe happens

Critique of logical correctness (critique of form)

• conclusion cannot be validly drawn from this premise because:

  • just because people disagree, doesn’t mean there is no objective truth

    • e.g., people disagreed about the shape of the earth but were they all correct? Was there no objective truth about that? What is really the shape of the earth?

  • observing a few instances does not warrant a conclusion about an entire “universe”

    • the conclusion is a statement about all cultures (generalization)

    • have the social scientists seen all cultures?

Three substantial arguments against the ER/CR conclusion on morals across cultures

• the conclusion confuses dressing with values

• some values are universal because if we do not uphold them, human beings will cease to exist

• critique based on moral progress

First substantial argument against ER/CR morality conclusion

the conclusion confuses dressing with values

• some bury their dead, some burn them; in the past, some ate them

  • purpose: respect for the dead

• some live in before marriage, some marry in church, in civil courts

  • purpose: belief in commitment

• the premise in the CR argument only looks at practice and from there makes a conclusion that does not see the value underneath, which are shared by the practices

• CR looks at the “dressing”

  • which are different because of historical and geographic exigencies

  • confuses dressing with values

Second substantial argument against ER/CR morality conclusion

some values are universal because if we do not uphold them, human beings will cease to exist

• we saw what would happen if we do not share universal values

  • Nazi Germany: racism

  • slavery

  • female genital mutilation

  • human trafficking

• some universal values

  • respect for human life

  • nurturing our young

  • truth-telling

Third substantial argument against ER/CR morality conclusion

critique based on moral progress

• if cultural relativism is correct, why do we constantly say some countries have experienced “moral progress”?

• if ER/CR is correct, cultures and societies will not change

  • histories show that cultures and societies DO change, which we say is for the better

  • we speak of moral progress, which assumes an ideal towards for which they change and grow

Moral Progress

• when we say, cultures had gone through this we mean they have changed, moved up towards a better state

• thus, to talk of this is to assume an ethical IDEAL towards which we move

Progress

• to move up; to improve or move towards a “better”, aspired state

Instigators of moral progress

• external

• internal

What has ER taught us?

• we must not denigrate the differences around us

• we must not be exclusivist — saying ours is the only correct position

Ethos

• underlying character, spirit, values, and moral beliefs that define a person, group, organization, or culture

The Filipino Way

• family, small circle is most important

• in the professional space, we still want to be very personal (like family); ideal of a warm environment

• personality centered leadership, not roles; focus on leaders as center of change, not structures

• focus on the bigger picture, but ignore details

• good at presentations, articulation of ideas

What are the Filipino Way’s effects on ethics?

• when small circle and family are most important, favoritism and conflict of interest (COI) arise; instead of respect for rules

  • fairness vs. compassion

    • compassion is a feeling towards persons u can see, fairness is an attitude towards people you cannot see

    • compassion towards a larger amount of people can lead to unfairness

• when boundaries of personal and profession are blurred = objective feedback is difficult, meritocracy is sacrificed

  • can lead to favoritism

• when personality leadership is preferred over structures and rules, persons at the top are expected to change an entire company, nation; not realistic; change not systemic; not sustainable

  • permanent change requires a change in the structures, not merely a change in the leaders

• when focus is on the big picture, rigor in collecting facts and data-driven decisions are ignored or are not priorities

  • you must really go into the facts to really make the right decision. ethics is not only about values, but also about facts, stakeholders, and fastidiousness. if you cannot do that, you cannot be ethical. that's why it's an uphill battle to chain ethics to people whose focus is the big picture

Filipino Way of Looking at Ethics

• shame vs. guilt

  • losing face with one’s peers (external pressure motivates doing the right thing) vs. internal acknowledgement of wrongdoing, remorse over act

    • indifference to corruption

• valuing or privileging familial, peer and personal loyalty

  • sacrifices the common good, principles

The Filipino Way: What should we do?

• we must endeavor to understand our strengths and weaknesses, so we don’t become slaves of its thinking and way of doing things

• expose ourselves to other cultures to better understand our own; APPROPRIATE an enlightened way of doing things

• rules, fairness, structural changes

• DON’T RANT. DO!

  • please don't rant; complaining will never change an ethical culture