Lesson 4: Sources of Authority by Weann-Rhyza Maestre

LESSON 4:

SOURCES OF

AUTHORITY GEC 18- ETHICS Prepared by: Grajo, Shaira Mae D. Maestre, Weann-Rhyza G. Nicol, Jellyn S.

Course Professor: Ms. Esha May Estiller

LESSON 4: SOURCES OF AUTHORITY

AT THE END OF THIS LESSON, YOU ARE EXPECTED TO: 1. recognize the importance but also limit in the law as a determinant of ethics; 2. understand the difficulty in making simplistic use of religion as a determinant of ethics; 3. and assess the possible ways using culture as a basis can help, but maybe also hinder, one's efforts in thinking about ethics.

Thinking about ethics, as you can probably imagine, is not easy. Trying to figure out the best reasons for maintaining that this is good while that is bad, or this is right while that is wrong takes effort, and sometimes, even with the mightiest effort, one is still left unsure, undecided. It seems a relief, then, if one could just look to some kind of authority figure, someone or something who would spare us the difficulty by simply telling us what moral valuations we should make. In this lesson, we will explore several instances wherein it is supposed there is a higher authority that compels our compliance on moral matters: the authority of the law, the authority of one's religion, and the authority of one's own culture.

THINK: Various institutions have such a strong influence in the way that we think and we act, including how we make moral valuations. We are constrained by the law from acting in certain ways; for instance, I cannot drive a vehicle beyond a certain speed limit on certain roads. Our religious tradition often both prevents us from some actions while encouraging us towards others; for instance, in the Islamic faith, Muslims are prohibited from drinking intoxicating beverages, and are enjoined to give charity to those who are less fortunate. Finally, we often look to culture as a basis for actions; we proudly proclaim that a strong sense of hospitality, cheerfulness, and respect for elders are prime Filipino values. So we can understand how it might be tempting to suppose that since we see ourselves already guided by these institutions, perhaps they are themselves the very authorities we should turn to in order to direct our ethics. We will discuss each of these three in turn.

LAW Ethics and laws are found in virtually all spheres of society. They govern the actions of individuals around the world on a daily basis. They often work hand-in-hand to ensure that citizens act in a certain manner, and likewise coordinate efforts to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public. Though the law often embodies ethical principles, law and ethics are not co-extensive. Based on society’s ethics, laws are created and enforced by governments to mediate our relationships with each other and to protect its citizens. While laws carry with them a punishment for violations, ethics do not. Essentially, laws enforce the behaviors we are expected to follow, while ethics suggest what we ought to follow, and help us explore options to improve our decisionmaking. In the Philippines, Filipinos are constrained to obey the laws of the land as stated in the country's criminal and civil codes. Making this even more particular, in a given province or city, let us say for instance Rizal province, or more particularly, Antipolo City, residents are constrained to follow any provincial laws or city ordinances present there. One can easily imagine this becoming even more localized to the barangay or village level, where, local or municipal layers of obligation are there for residents to follow. The term positive law refers to all the different rules and regulations that are posited or put forward by an authority figure which require one's compliance. At first glance, this seems to make a lot of sense. We recognize that there are many acts that we immediately consider unethical (e.g., murder or theft) which we know are also forbidden by the law. Further, the law is enforced by way of a system of sanctions that are administered through various persons and institutions, which all help in compelling us to obey. Taking the law to be the basis of ethics has the benefit of providing us with an objective standard that is obligatory and applicable to all. So, we would not be surprised if we were to hear someone say, "Ethics? That's simple. Just follow whatever the law says."

Sources: Manuela A. Gomez, E. P. C. C. (n.d.). Introduction to ethics. Lumen. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/atd-epcc-introethics-1/chapter/ethics-and-law/. A Course Module for ETHICS, Oscar G. Bulaong Jr.,Albert M. Lagliva et.al, Rex Book Store

LAW However, there might be some problems with this. Of course, we do maintain that generally speaking, one should obey the law. However, the idea that we are examining here is a more controversial one: the more radical claim that such a statement as the one stated above is proposing to us is that one can look to the law itself and nothing further in order to determine what is right or wrong. But the question is:

CAN ONE SIMPLY IDENTIFY ETHICS WITH THE LAW? One point that has to be raised here is the prohibitive nature of law. The law does not tell us what we should do; it basically works by constraining us from performing acts that we are not supposed to do. To put it slightly differently, the law cannot tell us what to pursue, only what to avoid. The question then is:

Would we be satisfied thinking about ethics solely from the negative perspective of that which we may not do, disregarding the important aspect of a good which we could and maybe even should do, even if it were not required of us by the law? Ethical decision-making comes from within a person’s moral sense and desire to preserve self-respect. Laws are codifications of certain ethical values meant to help regulate society, and also impact decision-making. Driving carefully, for example, because you don’t want to hurt someone is making a decision based on ethics. Driving carefully and within the speed limit because you see a police car behind you suggests your fear of breaking the law and being punished for it.

To make this point concrete, recall the story of a toddler who had been run over by a couple of vehicles. ³ While there were many passers-by who witnessed what had happened, for quite a long while, no one did anything to help. The child later died in the hospital. The law does not oblige people to help others in need, so none of these passers-by were guilty of breaking any law. However, many people reacting to this sad news report share some intuition that those passers-by who did nothing were in some way ethically culpable in their negligence. In view of this, even though we say it is a good thing to obey the law, perhaps one should explore thinking of ethics in a way that does not simply identify it with obedience to the law. Later, we shall see how the concept of law is creatively utilized in the Deontology of Immanuel Kant in a more ethically significant way.

RELIGION "Love the Lord, Your God, therefore, and always heed his charge: his statutes, decrees, and commandments." (New American Bible) Deuteronomy 11:1 Tagalog: Deuteronomia 11:1 Kaya’t iibigin ang Panginoon mong Dios, at iyong susundin ang kaniyang bilin, at ang kaniyang mga palatuntunan, at ang kaniyang mga kahatulan, at ang kaniyang mga utos kalian man. It expresses a claim that many people of a religious sensibility find appealing and immediately valid: the idea that one is obliged to obey her God in all things. As a foundation for ethical values, this is referred to as the divine command theory. The divinity called God, Allah (Islam), Jehovah, Buddha (or some other name to signify the Supreme Being) who commands us, and each one of us is obliged to obey our Creator. This is the sense when it comes to religion. There are persons and texts that one believes are linked to the Divine; by listening to these figures and reading these writings, an individual discovers how the Divine wants her to act. Further, someone maintaining a more radical form of this theory might go beyond these instruments of divine revelation and claim that God "spoke" to her directly to instruct her what to do.

At first glance, this theory seems to make sense. Many of us had been brought up with one form of religious upbringing or another, so it is very possible that there is a strong inclination in us to refer to our religious background to back up our moral valuations. We are presented with a more-orless clear code of prohibitions and many of these prohibitions given by religion-for instance, "Thou shall not kill" – Exodus 20:13, "Thou shall not steal" – Exodus 20:15 and "Thou shall not commit adultery"- Exodus 20:14 Taking religion to be the basis of ethics has the advantage of providing us with not only a set of commands but also a Supreme Authority. The Divine can command absolute obedience of a person, as the implications of her actions, good and bad, involve her ultimate destiny. Thus, we would not be surprised if we were to hear someone say, "Ethics? That's simple. Just follow whatever your religion says."

Sources: A Course Module for ETHICS, Oscar G. Bulaong Jr.,Albert M. Lagliva et.al, Rex Book Store The Bible

RELIGION However, there could be some problems with this. First, on the practical level, we realize the presence of a multiplicity of religions. Each faith demands differently from its adherents, which would apparently result in conflicting ethical standards. A second problem, on what we may call a more conceptual level, is the difficulty wherein the believer is required to clarify her understanding of the connection between ethics and the Divine. This problem was first elucidated in the history of thought by Plato in his dialogue titled Euthyphro. In the exchange between Socrates and Euthyphro, the question is raised as to how one is supposed to define "holiness." Euthyphro puts forward the idea that what is holy is what is loved by the gods. Socrates calls this into question by asking for the following clarification: Is it holy only because it is loved by the gods, or is it holy in itself and that is why it is loved by the gods? The relevance of these questions to our discussion becomes clear if rephrased in this way: Is it the case that something is right only because God commanded it, or is it the case that something is right in itself and that is the reason why God commanded it? If we presume that taking another's life is wrong, we can ask the question: Is it the case that this is so only because God commanded it, or that killing is in itself wrong, and therefore that is the reason why God commanded it? If we take the first option, and accept that it is wrong to take another's life because God commanded it, we are left with the problematic conclusion that there is nothing inherently wrong with killing. It is only because God said so-"Thou shall not kill"-that we consider such an act wrong. It would seem then that there is something arbitrary about it all, in the sense that God could will whatever He wants, and on that basis and nothing further, we have the distinction between right from wrong. Sources: A Course Module for ETHICS, Oscar G. Bulaong Jr.,Albert M. Lagliva et.al, Rex Book Store The Bible

RELIGION We would then simply have to accept the rightness or wrongness of things as having been a matter of God's call, whether or not it makes sense to us. As a further disturbing thought, we can imagine finding an occasion wherein we could believe that God is suddenly commanding us to do otherwise-that killing might now become acceptable. History reveals many sad instances of people believing that because God so wills it, they are now allowed to kill their fellow human beings in His name. The Crusades of the Middle Ages are a tragic case in point. Can we be satisfied with this idea that the divine will could be arbitrary? If, on the other hand, we take the second option and accept that killing is in itself wrong, then we acknowledge that perhaps there are standards of right and wrong that we can refer to independently of God. But if this is the case, then we actually do not obey a command because God commanded it, but are looking for those objective standards of right and wrong, to which God simply concurs. One would not even have to think in terms of obeying God-or even believing in Him-in order to abide by such ethical standards. Generally speaking, it is a good thing for a person of faith to abide by the teachings of her particular religion. But the divine command theory demands more than this, as it requires us to identify the entire sense of right and wrong with what religion dictates. The conceptual problem we have seen and the practical difficulties of simplistically and thoughtlessly basing ethics on the divine command are reasons enough for us to at least call this approach into question. Now, let us clarify this point further: our calling into question of the divine command theory is not intended to make anyone call into question his or her faith in God and the particular religious’ tradition he or she belongs to; it is not intended to be a challenge to one's faith. Instead, it is an invitation to consider whether there may be more creative and less problematic ways of seeing the connection between faith and ethics, rather than simply equating what is ethical with whatever one takes to have been commanded by God. Later, we shall see one way that we can have a subtler and yet powerful presentation of how one's faith may contribute to ethical thought when we look at the Natural Law theory of Thomas Aquinas. Sources: A Course Module for ETHICS, Oscar G. Bulaong Jr.,Albert M. Lagliva et.al, Rex Book Store The Bible

CULTURE

Culture describes a collective way of life, or way of doing things. It is the sum of attitudes, values, goals, and practices shared by individuals in a group, organization, or society. It reflects the moral and ethical beliefs and standards that speak to how people should behave and interact with others. Our exposure to different societies and their cultures makes us aware that there are ways of thinking and valuing that are different from our own, that there is in fact a wide diversity in how different people believe it is proper to act. From such instances, it may become easy to conclude that this is the case in ethics as well. There are also various examples easily identified that seem to bear these out: for instance, how relations between men and women can show a wide variety across different cultures, ranging from greater liberality and equality on one hand, to greater inequality and a relation of dominance versus submission on the other. From the reality of diversity, it is possible for someone to jump to the further claim that the sheer variety at work in the different ways of valuation means there is no single universal standard for such valuations, and that this holds true as well in the realm of ethics. Therefore, what is ethically acceptable or unacceptable is relative to, or that is to say, dependent on one's culture. This position is referred to as cultural relativism. Sources: A Course Module for ETHICS, Oscar G. Bulaong Jr.,Albert M. Lagliva et.al, Rex Book Store ·B. (n.d.). Ethics, an Overview | Boundless Management. Courses.Lumenlearning.Com. Retrieved August 28, 2021, from https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-management/chapter/ethics-an-overview/

CULTURE CULTURAL RELATIVISM Cultural relativism is the ability to understand a culture on its own terms and not to make judgments using the standards of one’s own culture. Using the perspective of cultural relativism leads to the view that no one culture is superior than another culture when compared to systems of morality, law, politics, etc. The concept of cultural relativism also means that any opinion on ethics is subject to the perspective of each person within their particular culture.

There is something appealing about this way of thinking because cultural relativism seems to conform to what we experience, which is the reality of the differences in how cultures make their ethical valuations. Second, by taking one's culture as the standard, we are provided a basis for our valuations. Third, this teaches us to be tolerant of others from different cultures, as we realize that we are in no position to judge whether the ethical thought or practice of another culture is acceptable or unacceptable. In turn, our own culture's moral code is neither superior to nor inferior to any other, but they would provide us, the people belonging to this culture, the moral standards that are appropriate and applicable to us. So, we would not be surprised if we were to hear someone say, "Ethics? That's simple. Just follow whatever your culture says."

Sources: A Course Module for ETHICS, Oscar G. Bulaong Jr.,Albert M. Lagliva et.al, Rex Book Store ·Tracy Evans, Santa Ana College. (n.d.). Cultural Relativism | Cultural Anthropology. Courses.Lumenlearning.Com. Retrieved August 28, 2021, from https://courses.lumenlearning.com/culturalanthropology/chapter/cultural-relativism/

CULTURE Tempting as this idea might sound, there are problems. In a classic exposition of this topic by James Rachels, he presents some of these difficulties. First, the argument of cultural relativism is premised on the reality of difference. Because different cultures have different moral codes, we cannot say that any one moral code is the right one. But is it the case that the very presence of disagreement in itself means there are no right or wrong answers? In other words, disagreement may mean that the question of who is right or wrong is not immediately evident, but it does not necessarily mean that there is no one correct resolution.

Second, under cultural relativism, we realize that we are in no position to render any kind of judgment on the practices of another culture. This seems to be a generous and an openminded way of respecting others. But what if the practice seems to call for comment? What if, for instance, some Middle Eastern country was highly repressive toward women to the point of violence? Are we in no position to judge any of this as wrong? Would we be satisfied with concluding that we are in no position to judge another culture? But this is one of the implications of cultural relativism.

Third, under cultural relativism, we realize that we are in no position to render judgment on the practices of even our own culture. If our culture was the basis for determining right and wrong, we would be unable to say that something within our cultural practice was problematic, precisely because we take our culture to be the standard for making such judgments. We may be proud and glad about identifying certain traits and values and practices of our culture, but we may not necessarily laud or wish to conform to all of them. It is possible that we may not be satisfied with the thought of not being able to call our own culture into question.

Fourth, and perhaps the most evident contemporary difficulty with cultural relativism, is that we can maintain it only by following the presumption of culture as a single, clearly defined substance or as something fixed and already determined. Now, it may be possible to find many examples of a certain culture having a unique practice or way of life and to distinguish it from other cultures' practices, but at the same time it is also becoming increasingly difficult to determine what exactly defines one's culture. Sources: A Course Module for ETHICS, Oscar G. Bulaong Jr.,Albert M. Lagliva et.al, Rex Book Store

CULTURE Is my culture "Filipino"? What if I-identify more with a smaller subset within this group, if, for example, I am Igorot? Is this then my culture? The point here precisely is the question: What am I supposed to take as "my culture"?

We can think of many other examples that reflect this same problem. Let us say that my father is from Pampanga and my mother is from Leyte, and I was brought up in Metro Manila: What is my culture? Or, let us say that my father is American and my mother is Filipina, and I was brought up in San Diego, California, but I am currently studying in a university in the Philippines: What am I supposed to take as "my culture"?

In an increasingly globalized world, the notion of a static and well-defined and distinct culture gives way to greater flexibility and integration. One result of this would be to call into question an idea like cultural relativism, which only makes sense if one takes as a starting point the problematic presumption that we can clearly distinguish a person's or group's culture.

THEREFORE, we can conclude this criticism of cultural relativism by pointing out how it would tend to become a problem in our study of ethics because it would most likely deprive us of our use of critical thought. On the positive side, cultural relativism promotes a sense of humility, that is, urging us not to imagine that our own culture is superior to another. Such humility, however, should go hand in hand with a capacity for a rational, critical discernment that is truly appreciative of human values. Unfortunately, what happens in cultural relativism is that it basically renders us incapable of discerning about the values we may wish to maintain as we are forced to simply accept whatever our culture gives us. It keeps us from exploring whether there are values that are shared between cultures; it keeps us from comparing and judging-either positively or negatively-the valuations that are made by different cultures. As previously mentioned, this presumes that we can determine culture in the first place, which becomes increasingly questionable in a transcultural world. Sources: A Course Module for ETHICS, Oscar G. Bulaong Jr.,Albert M. Lagliva et.al, Rex Book Store