Part 1-5

• Moral Persons


  Beings with moral status or standing, appropriate objects of moral concern, entities we ought to be concerned about regarding the morality of actions done by or to them
• An action cannot be judged according to moral standards if it was not done by and to a moral person
• Moral persons as entities of moral concern

  They are bearers of RIGHTS
• Rights


  • Entitlements, refer to interests one is allowed to pursue or actions one is allowed to do
• Rights


  • Right to life (entitlement to continue existence), Right to suffrage (entitlement to vote), Right to freedom of expression (entitlement to express thoughts)
• Rights and Duties


  Rights are different from duties, rights refer to interests one is allowed to pursue or actions one is allowed to do, duties are actions one ought to perform or do
• Rights and Duties


  Rights and duties correlate with and imply each other, rights imply duties and duties respect rights
• Types of Rights


  • Negative rights, Positive rights, Contractual rights, Legal rights, Moral rights
• Category 1 of Types of Rights

  • Negative rights, Positive rights
• Category 2 of Types of Rights


  • Contractual rights, Legal rights, Moral rights
• Types of rights


  • Negative rights
  • Positive rights
• Types of rights


  • Contractual rights
  • Legal rights
  • Moral rights
• Be able to understand the concept of “rights” as what makes a moral person to be objects of moral concern
• Distinguish the types of a moral persons
• Identify the criteria or qualifications for moral personhood
• Moral Agents & Patients

  • Eren lied to Mikasa
  • Moral Agent
  • Moral Patient
• Moral Agents


  • The doer or source of the morally evaluable action
  • Possess moral obligation
  • Generally, moral agents perform morally evaluable actions because it is their duty to do so
• Moral Patients


  • The recipient of the morally evaluable action
  • Possess moral right
  • Generally, morally evaluable actions are done to moral patients because it is their right that such actions be done to them
• A refinement can be made on this classification: while all moral persons can be receiver (moral patient) of morally evaluable action, only some of them can be sources (moral agent) of such actions
• Moral Persons


  • Agentive Moral Person
  • Non-Agentive Moral Person
• Agentive Moral Person


  • Moral persons who can both function as moral persons and agents
  • Possess both moral rights and obligation (and thus can be held morally accountable)
• Non-Agentive Moral Person


  • Moral persons who can only function as moral patients
  • Possess moral rights only (cannot be held morally accountable for their actions)
• Non-Agentive Moral Person


  • Infants and mentally challenged humans, animals, environment, etc.
• Agentive Moral Person


  • Normal human persons
• The conceptual advantage of this type of distinction is that it avoids confusion in assigning moral personhood to certain entities which can be found in the traditional distinction
• Ethical Relativism


  The view that holds that morality is valid relative to a particular society (or individual)
• Ethical Relativism


  • The rightness or wrongness of an action depends on society’s norms
• Ethical Relativism


  • Muslim societies practice polygamy, while Christian societies consider it wrong
  • Some cultures see nothing morally wrong with homosexual unions, while other societies condemn it
• Ethical Objectivism


  There are universally valid moral principles that bind all people at all times and at all places
• Ethical Objectivism


  • Regardless of culture, love is seen as a universally valid moral principle
  • Love and respect prevail in all cultures
• Arguments supporting Ethical Relativism

  1. Diversity Argument

  2. Dependency Argument

  3. Toleration Argument
• Dependency Argument


  Morality does not exist in a vacuum; what is considered morally right or wrong must be seen in a context, depending on the goals, wants beliefs, history, and environment of the society in question
• Louis Pojman: '“Morality does not exist in a vacuum; rather, what is considered morally right or wrong must be seen in a context, depending on the goals, wants beliefs, history, and environment of the society in question.”'
• Arguments against Ethical Relativism


  Illogical Reasoning
• Toleration


  Peaceful co-existence among different cultural, religious, and social groups
• The Challenges to Ethical Relativism
• Arguments against Ethical Relativism
• Illogical reasoning
• Main argument of Ethical Relativism

  • Given that peoples have different moral beliefs and practices, we can conclude that morality is relative
• Problem with the argument of Ethical Relativism