Shane Kyle Labe | BSN 4A

A feminist approach to ethics invites us to rethink moral considerations through the lens of inclusion, power dynamics, and lived experience. It disrupts ethical inquiries that disregard gendered perspectives, urging us to ask who is affected by a decision and whether their voices are truly heard. Rather than treating moral dilemmas as abstract puzzles, feminist ethics anchors them in the realities of those most impacted.

In the case of maternal surrogacy, the feminist lens reframes the conversation beyond legality or biological function. It asks whether surrogacy empowers women, whether it commodifies their bodies, and whether existing social structures support or exploit them in this process. It insists that ethics must not only examine actions but also the contexts and inequalities that shape them.

Similarly, in education, a feminist ethic questions which voices dominate curriculum design, who has access to knowledge, and how teaching methods reinforce or challenge systemic biases. It is not just about disseminating information but about fostering an environment where diverse perspectives are valued and critical thinking is encouraged.

At its core, feminist ethics challenges us to ensure that morality is not an abstract exercise but a tool for justice—one that does not erase those whose experiences have historically been marginalized. It demands ethics that listen, that recognize, and that actively seek equity rather than assume it.

BY: SHANE KYLE LABE | BSN 4A

BY: SHANE KYLE LABE|BSN 4A

The meme above shows a person surrounded by shopping bags, with a caption that reads: “Retail therapy: because nothing says happiness like maxed-out credit cards.” It’s meant to be humorous, but behind the joke lies a real issue in our society—how we often turn to shopping and material possessions as a way to deal with stress, sadness, or emptiness.

In many parts of the world today, buying more things is seen as a sign of success and happiness. Ads constantly tell us we need the latest gadgets, clothes, or lifestyle products to feel good about ourselves. This meme points out the excess—how consumerism is often used as a quick fix for emotional struggles, but rarely offers real satisfaction.

If we look at this from the perspective of Aristotle’s virtue ethics, we can understand why this habit can be harmful. Aristotle believed that to live a good and meaningful life, we must practice virtues—good habits that help us become our best selves. True happiness, or eudaimonia, comes from living with balance and purpose, not from material things.

One of the key virtues that Aristotle talked about is moderation or temperance—the ability to control our desires and not give in to extremes. The person in the meme is clearly engaging in excess—spending too much, likely on things they don’t really need, just to feel better emotionally. Aristotle would say this is not a balanced way to live. Too much focus on external goods distracts us from what really matters: inner growth, relationships, and self-respect.

Another virtue that’s missing here is practical wisdom (phronesis). This is the kind of intelligence we use to make good decisions in everyday life. A person with practical wisdom wouldn’t buy beyond their means just to escape their feelings—they’d find healthier, more meaningful ways to cope, like talking to a friend, resting, or reflecting on what really matters.

Lastly, Aristotle emphasized the value of authentic happiness—the kind that comes from within, not from temporary pleasures. The meme highlights how people often chase short-term joy through shopping, but still end up feeling empty afterward. This shows the difference between fleeting pleasure and lasting fulfillment.

In conclusion, the meme is a funny but truthful reminder of how materialism has taken hold of modern life. Through the lens of Aristotle’s virtue ethics, we learn that real happiness doesn’t come from what we buy, but from the kind of person we become. By practicing moderation, wisdom, and self-awareness, we can move away from the need to “buy happiness” and start living a life that is truly rich in meaning.

BY: SHANE KYLE LABE | BSN 4A

The Philippines has recently been confronted with a grave moral issue: the rape and murder of a 23-year-old Slovak tourist, Michaela Mickova, in Boracay. Mickova, who arrived on the island on March 1, 2025, to attend a friend’s wedding, was reported missing on March 10. Her body was discovered on March 12 in an abandoned chapel, showing signs of sexual assault and blunt force trauma. Investigations led to the apprehension of three individuals, one of whom confessed to the crime and implicated the others.  

Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative provides a framework to assess the moral dimensions of this heinous act. This principle dictates that one should act only according to maxims that can be willed as universal laws and that humanity should always be treated as an end, not merely as a means. Applying this to the crime in Boracay, if the maxim “It is acceptable to sexually assault and murder individuals” were universalized, it would lead to a society where personal safety and dignity are perpetually at risk, which is inherently contradictory to the foundations of moral law. Furthermore, the perpetrators treated Mickova merely as a means to their own ends, utterly disregarding her intrinsic worth as a human being, thereby violating the imperative to respect humanity.

The duties of the individuals involved are clear. The perpetrators had an unequivocal moral obligation to respect the autonomy and dignity of others, an obligation they egregiously failed to uphold. Law enforcement agencies bear the duty to ensure justice is served, both to honor the victim and to uphold the moral fabric of society. Society at large has a collective duty to foster an environment where such violations of human dignity are unequivocally condemned and actively prevented.

From a Kantian ethical perspective, the rape and murder of Michaela Mickova represent profound moral transgressions. These actions fail the tests of universalizability and respect for persons, underscoring the imperative for justice and the reinforcement of moral laws that protect the dignity and rights of every individual.

Reference:

1 of 3 persons of interest admits to rape-slay of Slovak tourist. (2025). Gmanetwork.com. https://www.gmanetwork.com/regionaltv/news/107150/1-of-3-persons-of-interest-admits-to-rape-slay-of-slovak-tourist/story/?utm_source=chatgpt.com/
‌

By: Shane Kyle D. Labe | BSN 4A

Thomas Hobbes’ concept of the state of nature describes a world without laws, governance, or morality, where individuals act purely out of self-interest, leading to conflict and instability. To escape this state, Hobbes argues that people must enter into a social contract, agreeing to follow rules that ensure peace and cooperation. This perspective highlights the necessity of morality as a foundation for social order. By exploring Hobbes’ views, we can better understand why ethical behavior is crucial for a functioning society and how its absence can lead to dangerous consequences, such as unqualified professionals in critical fields like medicine.

1. Explain the Hobbesian account of the state of nature and discuss whether you agree with it.

Hobbes’ state of nature is a hypothetical condition in which there are no laws, governments, or moral rules, leading to a chaotic and violent existence where life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Without authority, people would constantly be in conflict over resources, security, and power. I agree with Hobbes to an extent because history has shown that societies without strong governance often descend into disorder. However, his view may be too pessimistic, as humans are also capable of cooperation and altruism without absolute control.

2. Explain what Hobbes means by the state of nature. What is the inevitable consequence of living in the state of nature?

For Hobbes, the state of nature is a lawless condition where individuals pursue their own interests without regard for others, leading to a constant state of war. The inevitable consequence is fear, violence, and insecurity, as there is no higher authority to enforce peace. Without a system of rules and governance, people would have no reason to trust one another, making life unstable and dangerous.

3. How do we avoid the state of anarchy according to Hobbes?

Hobbes believes that to avoid anarchy, people must enter into a social contract, where they willingly surrender some of their freedoms to a governing authority in exchange for security and order. This means establishing a strong central government that enforces laws and punishes those who break them. Without this agreement, society would collapse into chaos, as individuals would have no protection from violence and deception.

4. In a gist, why do we need morality according to Hobbes?

According to Hobbes, morality is necessary because it provides a framework for social stability and cooperation. Without moral rules, people would act purely in their own self-interest, leading to conflict and destruction. Morality, enforced through laws and social agreements, allows individuals to coexist peacefully and work toward common goals. In this sense, morality is not just about being good—it is a practical necessity for survival.

5. Many students over the years have cheated their way into medical school. Would you want to be a patient of one of these doctors? What does this tell you about the reasons to be moral?

No, I would not want to be treated by a doctor who cheated their way into medical school. Such a doctor may lack the necessary knowledge and skills to provide safe and effective care, putting patients’ lives at risk. This example illustrates a key reason to be moral: ethical behavior builds trust and ensures competence in society. When individuals act dishonestly for personal gain, they undermine the integrity of institutions and put others in danger. Morality is essential not only for personal virtue but also for the well-being of the community as a whole.

By: Shane Kyle Labe | BSN 4A

In Plato’s Republic, Glaucon presents a challenge to Socrates, questioning whether justice is truly valuable or merely a social construct. In this post, I’ll explore Glaucon’s arguments, including the famous Ring of Gyges, and discuss what they reveal about human nature and the nature of justice.

GUIDE QUESTIONS:

1. What is the question that Glaucon posed to Socrates? Explain the meaning of the question.

Glaucon asks Socrates if justice is good in and of itself, or if it is only valued because of its external consequences, such as rewards or social approval. He challenges Socrates to prove that justice has intrinsic worth, separate from its practical benefits. Essentially, Glaucon questions whether people are truly motivated to act justly for the sake of justice itself or if they are simply motivated by fear of punishment and desire for personal gain.

2. What are the different kinds of goods, and which kind of good is justice, according to Socrates? What is Glaucon’s response to Socrates’s view of justice?

Socrates outlines three types of goods:

1. Goods we desire for their own sake (e.g., happiness, love).

2. Goods we desire for the sake of other things (e.g., medicine, exercise, which we engage in for health benefits).

3. Goods that are both intrinsically and instrumentally valuable (e.g., knowledge, health, which are valuable in themselves and for the outcomes they bring).

Socrates argues that justice falls into the third category—it is both intrinsically good (worth pursuing for its own sake) and instrumentally good (beneficial for the harmony it brings to the soul and society). Glaucon, however, contends that justice is mainly a necessary evil—a social construct that people only follow because they fear the consequences of injustice.

3. What is the popular view of justice, according to Glaucon? According to Glaucon, what is the nature and origin of justice?

According to Glaucon, the popular view of justice is that it is a compromise—a necessary condition to avoid chaos. People practice justice not because they truly value it but because they fear the consequences of unjust actions. He believes that justice originated from a social contract, where individuals gave up some of their freedom to avoid the suffering caused by the unchecked behavior of others. People follow justice because it serves their self-interest, ensuring a stable society where their desires are not thwarted by others’ desires.

4. What is Glaucon’s point in comparing the completely just-but-seemingly-unjust man with the completely unjust-but-seemingly-just man? Which would you choose? Is there a third alternative?

Glaucon compares the just-but-seemingly-unjust man, who suffers from being wrongly perceived as unjust, with the unjust-but-seemingly-just man, who is admired despite his corruption. The point is that people value the appearance of justice over actual justice because the unjust person seems to reap more rewards. If given the choice, most would likely prefer the second man, as he enjoys power and success without the consequences of being unjust.

A third alternative could be the truly just man who is also perceived as just—someone whose moral integrity leads to success and societal respect. This ideal represents the pursuit of justice that is both internally fulfilling and externally rewarding.

Glaucon argues that people only practice justice because they are coerced into it by the fear of punishment and the desire to avoid the suffering caused by injustice. According to him, if individuals were not subject to these external pressures, they would naturally choose to act unjustly. The Ring of Gyges serves as an illustration of this idea. Gyges, a shepherd who discovers a ring that makes him invisible, uses the power to murder and seize the throne. The story highlights how people, when freed from the consequences of their actions, will likely choose to act in their own self-interest, revealing the darker side of human nature.