MODULE 2: ETHICS, MORES, AND VALUES

Introduction
This module aims to analyze the nature of mores and values in ethics. It discusses the
interplay between the individual as a free moral agent, and his/her society or environment, as well
as the process of value experience, including the difference between values and moral values. In
broad strokes, it gives a background on the nature of morality and the mores which are the subject
matter of ethics. It examines the nature of mores, including the development of the notion of what
is ‘right’ in our culture. The module also examines the notion of freedom as it relates to morality,
together with the wide range of values and moral values, including the nature and basis of the
choices that we make.

Learning Outcomes
After studying this module, you should be able to:
1. Discuss the nature of mores and values in ethics;
2. Explain the difference between values and moral values;
3. Differentiate between a moral judgment and a moral decision; and 4. Explore the difference
between intellectual choice and practical choice.

A. The Realm of Morality: Ethics and Mores

Ethics is the branch of philosophy that deals with the systematic questioning and critical
examination of the underlying principles of morality. Ethics came from the root word ‘ethos’ which
refers to the character of a culture. Ethos includes the attitude of approval or disapproval in a
particular culture at a given time and place. The subject matter being studied in ethics is morality.
Morality came from the root word ‘mores’, which refers to the customs, including the customary
behavior, of a particular group of people. This constitutes the core of the attitudes and beliefs of a
particular group of people. Therefore, mores (in Latin) and ethos (in Greek), both refer to
customary behavior.

Ethics as the study of moral goodness or badness or the rightness and wrongness of an act and
it has two general approaches — normative and meta-ethics. Normative ethics answers the
question, ‘What is good?’ It pertains to norms or standards of goodness and the rightness or
wrongness of an act. A comprehensive normative ethical system tries to give a moral framework
where its standards of morality are based. An example is Christian ethics with its well defined and
clear parameters and definition of what is good and bad based on its comprehensive framework.
Meta-ethics, on the other hand, examines the presuppositions, meanings, and justifications of
ethical concepts and principles. For example, instead of assuming that there is an objective moral
truth, meta-ethics will question the basis for this by asking whether or not morality is objective or
subjective, or by posing questions about the assumption of a moral theory such as ‘What is your
justification for claiming in your theory that pleasure is good?’
 The study of ethics and morality entails an analysis of both the individual human person acting
as a free moral agent and his/her society with its social rules and sanctions that set limitations on
individual behavior. Individual behavior is governed by a sense of what is the right thing to do,
which is based on the customs or mores of a particular society. For example, the way parents raise
their children is governed by the mores of their society.

B. The Role of Society and the Individual in the Emergence of Mores

William Graham Sumner, a well-known sociologist and anthropologist, claims that our notion
of what is ‘right’ stems from our basic instinct to survive. That is, human beings formed groups in
order to meet the task of survival, and from living in groups they observed best practices and
developed the most practical way of doing things. From these practices emerged traditions and
notions of the right thing to do. For example, for each group of people there is a right way of
catching game, a right way of treating guests, and a right way of dressing up.

Sumner refers to these notions of ‘right’ and ‘true’ as ‘folkways’. Sumner states further that
mores come from folkways, with the added element of societal welfare embodied in them. In order
to preserve society and its accepted norms and practices, the individual, consciously or
unconsciously, defends and upholds society’s notions of what is right. At the same time, the group
as a whole develops social rules and sanctions, which may be implicit or explicit, in order to
preserve the group practices and to control the behavior of the individual for the purpose of
maintaining order in society.

Thus, customs emerge out of repeated practices, while from the individual observance of group
practices emerge habits. This becomes the culture of a particular group or society. Mores become
the compelling reason to do what ought to be done, because it is the right thing to do to preserve
and protect society. Mores exert social pressure on the individual to conform to society’s
expectations in terms of character and behavior — that is, to come as close as possible to the ideal
man or woman.

Activity 1

Read William Sumner’s “The Case for Ethical Relativism” in Philosophy: The Basic Issues
and then answer the questions below based on what you understood from the reading.

1. How do you develop your notion of ‘what is the right thing to do’ in society?

2. What is the connection between your choices as an individual and that of your society?

3. To what extent do the mores of your society shape your notion of “good/bad” or
“right/wrong”?

4. Do mores change? How? Cite an example.

 Even as society defends and preserves its mores, these same mores may change to adapt to
new conditions. The changes in the mores of a particular society do not happen in an instant, but
they happen unconsciously over time. For example, during the Spanish period, women wore
dresses that covered them from head to toe, and it was thought that seeing a woman’s ankles was
tantamount to seeing her naked. But women’s fashion has changed so much through the years that
our Spanish ancestors might well be rolling in their graves at the way women are dressed today.
According to Sumner, this point can be summarized thus: “The ‘morals’ of an age are never
anything but the consonance between what is done and what the mores of the age requires.”

Consequently, with regard to morality one always has to consider two points of view - the
point of view of society, together with its customs, social rules, and social sanctions, and that of
the individual or the free moral agent who develops habits in the course of following the social
norms established by society. Ultimately, it is still the individual, in his/her capacity as a rational
and free moral agent, who will decide whether to follow these norms.

On the other hand, society is not homogenous, because there is an interplay of varying
views and groups where the individual belongs. The factors that may affect the individual’s choices
are varied and even contradictory at times. The individual may belong simultaneously to different
groups, and these groups could exert varying and sometimes contrasting degrees of influence on
him/her. For example, individuals can be influenced by their family, peer groups, church, school,
the mass media, and social media. Ultimately, however, it is still the individual who would make
his/her own moral decisions.

As mentioned, the notion of morality develops with the interplay between society and the
individual. Here, society would be composed of different groups that directly or indirectly shape
the values of the individual. These values serve as the individual’s guide in his/her pursuit of what
he/she believes to be the moral or the ‘good’ life. Note that the individual is assumed to be a free
moral agent who can make choices and deliberate or reflect before acting or making a decision.
Moreover, as society grows and becomes more complex, the different groups that comprise it could
put forward competing values, including different notions of ‘what is good’. In this case, it is the
rational individual who can decide for him/herself which moral principles to uphold, based on
his/her upbringing and the influence of various groups in his/her society (family, church, school,
peer groups, social media, mass media, etc.). Therefore, the individual plays a pivotal role as a free
moral agent in analyzing, choosing, and valuing what he/she considers as most important when
he/she makes his/her choices.

Society, as a whole, functions as a way of controlling the behavior of an individual. It

becomes necessary to impose social controls and sanctions so that the individual would be guided
accordingly. To a certain extent, society coerces its members to follow its rules to maintain order.
For example, even if we are irritated by people who disobey traffic rules, we are not free to do
what we would like to do, like kill them, because we are bound by the mores of our society. These
mores become the basis of the morals of that society when expressed or laid out as ethical
principles that its members are bound to respect and follow. This is the force or power of mores.
The individual can feel this power whenever he/she does something against the rules of society
and he/she is bothered by his/her ‘conscience’ as if he/she is hearing the voices of elders telling
him/her what he/she should do.
 According to Sumner, as society grows, it becomes more difficult to control the behavior
of its members, and there is a need to formalize and codify some of the rules that we are bound to
follow. Thus, from mores as the embodiment of societal welfare, laws and institutions emerge in
order to protect society and to set some system of societal control over the behavior of individual
members. These laws could be positive laws and customary or common laws, while institutions
could be crescive or enacted.

Sumner states that common laws or customary laws are part of the customs of our society,
and they emerge unconsciously as part of the mores of our culture, whereas positive laws are
formulated and are products of rational reflection, discussion, and verification. For example, our
constitution and penal code are part of the positive laws of the Philippines while certain practices
in our culture like ‘sabong’ or cockfighting with its own rules of the game, or the informal practice
of transacting personal loans without collateral (also known as “5-6”) from enterprising people,
and even keeping common law wives on the part of philandering husbands have long been part of
our culture and are examples of our customary or common law. They may not be legal but these
practices are part of the Filipino culture and are accepted or tolerated by many. Institutions, on the
other hand, can be considered crescive or enacted. Crescive institutions, according to Sumner, are
products of our mores like our very rich religious practices which mirror the religiosity of Filipinos.
In contrast, enacted institutions are products of rational reflection and are purposely established to
cater to the needs of the members of society, in the process establishing order and protecting
society. Examples of enacted institutions are our banking system and land titling system.

Unfortunately, not everything that has been passed into a positive law can be considered
moral or in accordance with the mores originally intended to serve societal welfare and protect
society. In this regard, an important question to consider is: Is what is legal moral?

Activity 2!
Watch the 40-minute HBO documentary “Saving Face” at
http://www.alluc.to/documentaries/watch-saving-face-2012-online/448019.html. After
watching the documentary about acid attacks on women in Pakistan, answer the following
questions:
1. Explain these incidents of acid attack on women in terms of the mores of their culture. 2.
Do you think women should be freed from this bondage? Do you agree with Zakia’s pursuit
of justice? Explain your answer.
3. Is it your obligation as a moral being to enlighten and empower women and other
marginalized sectors from their own culture by educating them about their rights in order
that they could assert and enjoy freedom in their own culture? Why/Why not?

Be ready to discuss your answers in class.

ETHICS 1 - Ethics and Moral Reasoning in Everyday Life

Activity 2!
Watch the 40-minute HBO documentary “Saving Face” at
http://www.alluc.to/documentaries/watch-saving-face-2012-online/448019.html. After
watching the documentary about acid attacks on women in Pakistan, answer the following
questions:

1. Explain these incidents of acid attack on women in terms of the mores of their culture.

2. Do you think women should be freed from this bondage? Do you agree with Zakia’s
pursuit of justice? Explain your answer.

3. Is it your obligation as a moral being to enlighten and empower women and other
marginalized sectors from their own culture by educating them about their rights in order
that they could assert and enjoy freedom in their own culture? Why/Why not? Be ready
to discuss your answers in class.

C. Freedom and Morality

The concept of freedom, as well as the application of freedom to individual rights, has been
widely used in different levels of analysis in Philippine society as a whole. Freedom as a concept
that pertains to the moral realm is examined in this section. An important question that must be
brought to light is: What is freedom and how is it exercised in the realm of morals?

John Paul Sartre, an existentialist philosopher, assumes the idea of radical freedom by
claiming that “man is condemned to be free”. Sartre conceives of “man” as an unconstrained free
moral agent in the sense that he always has a choice in every aspect of his life. Even if somebody
points a gun at his head, he still has a choice whether to follow the wishes of his captors. Sartre
claims that “Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself.” “Man” is never compelled
or determined; he is totally free and therefore, totally responsible for all the things that he does.

When you exercise freedom in making your choices, you are taking control and assuming
full responsibility for those choices. However, there is one important caveat: you are free but this
freedom is not absolute. You cannot do anything that you please without taking into consideration
the norms of your society. Mores are there to serve as a form of social control to limit, govern, or
regulate your behavior in order to maintain order in your society. For example, you cannot just go
about killing people you consider as obnoxious. You are perhaps familiar with the saying ‘your
freedom ends where my freedom begins’.
 Within the given parameters of our environment, including the economic, political and
social environment, we assume freedom. Our discussion will come to nothing if we assume
otherwise — i.e. that human beings are not free and their choices are always determined by factors
or forces in their environment. This deterministic view is tantamount to saying that human beings
are like robots or machines whose actions and functions can be predicted like cause and effect
given the parameters of the variables in his/her environment. Nor can we embrace fully the extreme
view of radical freedom without taking into consideration the norms of our society. Freedom of
the human person in the moral sense of the word assumes that one is a free moral agent. Moral, in
this sense, refers to the freedom to make one's choice in accordance with one’s own moral
discernment of what is good and bad, and one is taking full responsibility for one’s own actions
and is using his/her rational and empathetic capacity as a moral being. Aside from our reason and
critical thinking, we also have the ability to empathize or to feel what other beings feel and to
situate ourselves in their shoes.

Activity 3
Read Benedict, R. (1934). Anthropology and the abnormal. Journal of General Psychology,
and answer the questions below.

1. Explain Benedict’s concept of the “normal/abnormal” and relate it with Sumner’s

discussion of the mores of society.

2. Explain and analyze the normal practices or norms in the cultures of the tribes
described by Benedict in terms of the discussion about mores and social sanctions to
maintain, preserve, and protect the welfare of one’s society.

3. Compare the norms described by Benedict to our own standard of what is

“normal/abnormal” in our culture. How will you justify these ‘abnormal’ practices? Be
ready to discuss your answers in class.

D. Necessary Conditions for Morality: Freedom and Obligation

According to John Mothers head, there are two necessary conditions for morality to occur:
freedom and obligation. As explained above, freedom is assumed when one is making choices and
is the agent taking full responsibility for planning his/her life, and in the process, planning and
budgeting his/her actions for some future goal. This is in accordance with the individual’s moral
and rational capacity to know and discern what is right and wrong. This condition of freedom can
be seen as limiting or constraining the realm of morals for human beings. Animals do not have the
capacity to look forward and consciously plan for the future. Even when ants hoard their food for
the rainy days, this action is based on instinct. Only human beings are capable of planning for their
future, planning their life, and setting their goals as a result of these plans.

The assumption of freedom entails another assumption, which is obligation. In its moral
sense, obligation is construed as a one’s duty to him/herself to exercise freedom as a rational moral
being. In other words, it is seen as his/her duty to him/herself to do this budgeting and planning
for the future because the future is yet to be and the only way to make it better is by being obliged
to do so.

In other words, you are not free to be unfree. In making moral decisions and choices, it is
within the capacity of the human person as an active and free moral agent to exercise his/her
freedom of choice as his/her obligation to him/herself.

Our discussion of freedom entails this basic presupposition: That the human person is free
in the exercise of making choices in the realm of morality — that is, in making choices with regard
to determining what is the right thing to do in situations and circumstances in his/her own life. This
can be summarized in our Filipino saying, “Buntot mo, hila mo!” It is taking full responsibility for
your actions and being obliged to do so.

When was the last time you blamed other people for a mistake that you made? There is a
tendency for people to blame others for their choice of a course of action. For example, a couple
who freely choose to marry each other out of love could, when the marriage sours, blame each
other for their predicament and end up saying he/she was forced or coerced by the other into the
marriage. However, it is one’s obligation to oneself to exercise one’s capacity for deliberation and
reflection by thinking about the consequences before making a decision. In other words, this is an
exercise of one’s rationality to the fullest without forgetting one’s humanity and his/her capacity
for empathy.

Activity 4

A. Read Mothershead’s Ethics: Modern Conception of the Principles of Right, “The

Problem of the Scope of Morality” and answer the study questions below.
1. When does a value become a moral value? Is money a value? Can money become a
moral value? Why/Why not? Can you think of other examples?
2. Why do we have this tendency to render moral judgements on others so easily?
Explain your answer.
3. Is your practical choice always in consonance with your intellectual choice? Why/Why
not?

B. Think of an example of a morally significant act that you have done in the past which
you consider as an exercise of your freedom.
1. Explain how, in your exercise of this freedom, you also considered society’s role in limiting
your behavior.

2. And then explain how your exercise of this freedom is a moral obligation on your part. "
Write your answer in your journal and then share your views in class.
E. Values and Choices
This section explains the reason behind the claim that only human beings are moral. The nature of
our value experiences is explained, including the difference between a value and a moral value as
well as the distinction between moral decisions and moral judgments and between intellectual and
practical choices.

Activity 5
Watch the movie ‘Hachiko’ starring Richard Gere at http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=cSkgXhHbCSw.
Do you think the dog Hachi has the capacity to make moral decisions and choices? Why/
Why not?
Write your answer in your journal and then share your views in class.

F. Only Humans are Moral

According to Mothershead, conduct refers to deliberate human action. It is a result of the

process of reflection based on the idea that the human person is endowed with the capacity to
think and plan his/her own life using his/her rationality and to weigh the consequences of his/her
actions.

In general, we do not ascribe morality to animals or to natural calamities like typhoons,

earthquakes or tsunamis, for example. Even if typhoon Yolanda claimed around 8,000 lives, it
would be nonsensical to declare that typhoon Yolanda was immoral. Animals are not capable of
the act of deliberation or reflection. If your cat or your dog eats your fried chicken, this is not an
action based on reflection and deliberation but on instinct — for example, the cat or dog does not
think about whether it would be depriving its master of food for dinner. Animal behavior is
instinctive whereas human behavior is a matter of conduct. While some animals have been
recognized to have the ability to solve simple problems and the ability to connect events like cause
and effect, they develop these through the process of conditioning, where positive and negative
reinforcement are used for the animal to learn the behavior. An example is Skinner’s pigeon which
was conditioned or trained to peck five times for food to be given. Another example is a
chimpanzee, shown to have the capacity to solve simple problems by using simple instruments or
devices in order to reach his food, like using a stick to get the food placed in an area not near
enough for his bare hands or to use a stool to reach and pull the string to turn on the light.

Some philosophers have debated whether some animals have the capacity to be moral
because of stories where pet animals like dogs have been recognized as heroes for saving lives. In
the Philippines, we have our version of a hero dog named ‘Kabang’ whose upper snout was badly
damaged when she went between her master’s daughter and a tricycle to protect her from being
run over. Do you think that what Kabang did is a moral act? Did it entail deliberation or was it
based purely on instinct and conditioning? As a compromise to these two opposing views, some
philosophers have agreed to call this pre-reflective morality in animals because animals are not
capable of the wide range of deliberation, reflection, concept construction, and rational and critical
thinking that humans are able to do. In other words, this is morality that occurs prior to deliberation
and reflection. According to Mothershead, only humans are moral in so far as they are capable of
deliberate human action.

G. Value Experience: Values and Moral Values

In the process going through our everyday lives, we cannot help but choose and consider
the options available to us. The range of choices is so wide and varied. It ranges from the most
trivial to the most difficult choices and decisions that we have to make in our life. When we are in
the process of choosing among the alternatives in a given situation, even in the most trivial things
like choosing our outfit for the day, or what to eat, or what hairstyle to adopt, the process of value
experience comes into play. Mothershead adds that this is the side-taking part of our experience.
This valuation process happens when we make choices and indicate our preferences, for example,
when we like or dislike, approve or disapprove, favor or disfavor. Values are the result of this
process of value experience where you set which priorities to pursue. They may also be considered
as imperatives that you have set your mind to do. According to Mothershead, “All values are
priorities with respect to some aspect of human experience. This is usually expressed by saying
that values are imperatives; they make a claim upon us, whether we admit the claim or not.” We
do this valuation process when we set priorities among the choices or alternatives available to us.
For example, choosing to buy smartphones over something else reflects the value placed on being
socially connected.

Now when does a value become a moral value? The priorities that we attach to values are
limited in its scope of importance or significance in our life. For example, money is a value and as
a student you might save money in order to buy something that you value more, like a new mobile
phone. Once you have that new mobile phone, you will be fulfilled until the next object of value
that you would consider worth saving up for. In other words, money is a value because it is a means
to an end, which could be another value more important than money and for which you are willing
to give up your money. Your textbooks are of value throughout the school year that you are using
them. But once the school year is over, you would normally discard them to make way for a new
set of textbooks in your shelf for the next school year. The value of looking at a beautiful face is
often appreciated by many. When a beautiful person passes by, everybody would look at that
person and perhaps appreciate beauty when they see it. But that is all there is to it. This is because
beauty is just a value.

Can beauty become a moral value? Can money become a moral value? Can chastity and
purity become a moral value? Mothershead argues that a value can become a moral value if it
becomes an unlimited priority in its scope of relevance in our life. This is to say that one is willing
to give up other values in order to promote what s/he considers as a moral value. Thus, a moral
value takes precedence and priority over other values. In other words, you are willing to give up
other values just to promote this moral value. Moreover, the priority claimed by this moral value
is unlimited because it could influence your decisions in other aspects of your life and you are
willing to set other values aside for it. For example, those who value chastity and purity are willing
to forego love in order to remain chaste and pure. Money could also become a moral value for
some people who set aside other values, like family ties or friendship, for the sake of money. This
could be the reason why we sometimes hear negative labels like ‘Mukhang pera yan’, ‘Walang
kai-kaibigan o kamag-anak, lahat pera pera lang ang katapat’, ‘Diyos niya ang pera!’ Still others
may consider beauty as a moral value when they are willing to take risks to their health, like having
surgical enhancements in order to achieve beauty.

Values and moral value may change over time. As one matures and grows older, there are
values and moral value that one outgrows and a new set takes over. These changes could be brought
about by changing circumstances or by unforeseen events. For example, after the aftermath of
Typhoon Yolanda, people in the affected areas may have re-examined their priorities as they faced
the reality of losing their loved ones.

Activity 6
Make a list of things that you value (they could be material or non-material). Arrange them
according to their degree of importance in your life.
Consider the topmost three of these things that you value. Do you also consider them as a
moral value? Please explain why they are so or why they are not your moral values? And
then consider the bottom part of your list of values and explain why they should belong
there using your valuation process.

H. Moral Judgments and Moral Decisions

According to Mothershead, “Making moral judgments is budgeting actions”. Furthermore,

for him, “[a] moral decision is the most important class of moral judgments” because it “has
reference to the judger’s own future action.” Our moral decisions reflect our choices as to what
should be included or excluded in our life. This is what freedom entails — to make these choices,
and in effect, to plan and budget our life, including mapping out plans for the future.

Mothershead also states that “not all moral judgments are decisions” as “many of our moral
judgments have reference to other people or groups of people.” We often render moral judgments
on what others should or ought to do. Here, we are like spectators, where the process of budgeting
or planning extends to other people or groups, and goes beyond our personal life and endeavors.
This activity could extend outside of our personal space, to our neighbors, to celebrities we do not
know personally, to other ethnic groups and even to people outside our country of origin. It has
been said that Filipinos are prone to making moral judgments even on people they barely know.
Perhaps this is also true of people in other countries. In general, people have a propensity to make
moral judgments on other people. In fact, it could sometimes become a pastime or a habit for some,
taking the form of giving unsolicited advice. These judgments could have a wide range of
application and could extend into the indeterminable future. When we claim for example, as a
moral judgment, that no one should be allowed to punish an innocent person, this judgment has a
wide- and far-reaching application beyond our lifetime.
 Activity 7
Cite statements that possess universal appeal and are upheld as moral values.

H. Intellectual Choice and Practical Choice

In our actions as free moral agents and the exercise of moral reasoning, there tends to be
what Grassian has labelled as “the confusion between what one ought to do and what one would
be inclined to do”. We can adapt an objective point of view and ask ourselves, “What do I ought
to do given this situation?” With this question in mind, we could very well examine and analyze
the situation as objectively as possible with the use of our intellectual and rational capacity, in
order to come up with an intellectual choice. This is the process of giving normative answers as
rational moral beings. Normative answers are answers about what we ought to do from a moral
system that we uphold and its moral principles. These normative or prescriptive answers would
also take into consideration the behavior that is expected of us by society. For example, when you
are being asked to resolve a moral dilemma, you can try to give your intellectual choice as a
normative answer. Here you are using your imagination because you are not, as it were, facing that
actual moral situation described in the dilemma. In this case, the answers that you are inclined to
give are prescriptive in this imaginary and hypothetical situation.

On the other hand, the question “What would I be inclined to do, given this situation” has
to do with the practical choice when faced with the actual situation. There seems to be a difference
between making moral decisions in actual situations where you are involved and the normative
answers that you give when you are confronted only with a hypothetical situation. These practical
choices when confronted with the actual situation have to do more with the psychological aspect
of the person actually embroiled in the moral situation or dilemma, according to Grassian. He adds
that “[o]ur quest, however, is not the psychological one of what an individual would as a matter of
fact be inclined to do in a given situation but, rather, the normative one of what he morally ought
to do. The mere fact that an individual might be inclined to act in a particular way does not show
that that is the way he should act.”

For example, psychological and emotional stress and lack of time to deliberate during an
actual moral situation may affect a person’s moral decision in that situation. A person may be so
engulfed by emotions that s/he may sometimes fail to make the right choice. Or the stress could
make the person's practical choice inconsistent with her/his intellectual choice. This is the root of
the confusion, Grassian claims. The business of philosophy is the examination of what one ought
to do — i.e., one's intellectual choices. It is hoped that given the luxury of time to reflect on moral
problems and situations, when the time comes for one to confront actual problems and situations,
one would make the correct choices based on what one ought to do.
 Activity 8
In the recent past, can you recall any conflict between your intellectual choice and your
practical choice? Which did you uphold? Discuss your reasons for making that particular
choice.

CONCLUSION

To sum up, mores come from our folkways which are the source of our notion of what is
right, but with the added element of societal welfare in order to protect, preserve and maintain
society. In the study of morality, which is the subject matter of ethics, there are two points of view
to consider: first, the point of view of society, together with its customs, social rules and sanctions;
and second, the point of view of the individual or the human being as a free moral agent. According
to Mothershead, there are two necessary conditions for morality to occur: freedom and obligation.
Freedom is assumed when one is making his/her choices and is the agent who is taking full
responsibility for planning his/her life, and in the process, planning and budgeting his/her actions
for some future outlook or goal. This is in accordance with his/her moral and rational capacity for
knowing and discerning what is right and wrong. Together with the assumption of freedom is
obligation. In its moral sense, obligation is construed as one’s duty to oneself to exercise this
freedom as a rational moral being. In other words, it is seen as a person’s duty to him/herself to do
this budgeting and planning for the future. Thus, according to Mothershead, only humans are moral
in so far as they are capable of deliberate human action. Value experience is the side-taking part
of our experience. This valuation process happens when we make choices and indicate our
preferences, for example when we like or dislike, approve or disapprove, favor or disfavor. Values
are the result of this process of value experience where you set which priorities to pursue. They
may also be considered as imperatives that you have set your mind to do. Mothershead argues that
a value can become a moral value if it becomes an unlimited priority in its scope of relevance in
one’s life.

Moral decisions comprise the most important class of moral judgments because these have
reference to the judgers’ own future action. A moral judgment has reference to other people or
groups of people, specifically with regard to what they should or ought to do. “What ought I to do
given this situation?” With this question in mind, we could examine and analyze the situation as
objectively as possible using our intellectual and rational capacity in order to come up with an
intellectual choice. This is the process of giving normative answers as rational moral beings.
Normative answers are answers about what we ought to do from a moral system that we uphold
and its moral principles. On the other hand, the question “What would I be inclined to do given
this situation?” has to do with the practical choice that we make when faced with the actual
situation. There seems to be a difference between making moral decisions in actual situations
where we are involved and the normative answers that we give when we are confronted with a
hypothetical situation.