This document discusses different moral frameworks, including love, justice, and their relationship. It covers: 1) Love as an agapeic moral framework based on caring for others and meeting their needs, as exemplified by Jesus' teachings. Justice is the minimum requirement of love. 2) Justice as promoting the common good and equal access to opportunities/wealth. This includes concepts like social justice, distributive justice, taxation, and protecting public welfare. 3) A synthesis of frameworks proposed by Garner and Rosen, where an act's rightness depends on its consequences and adherence to duty, considering the situation and impact on all.

1. Lesson 6: The Love And Justice Framework
Principle of Love
There are three well-known concepts of love originating from the Greeks, namely agape or
charity, erotic or passionate sexual encounter, and philia, the affection between friends. Love as a
moral framework is the agapeic. Agape is the love principle preached by Jesus Christ. What Christ
did as narrate in the new testament are all acts of love. Feeding the hungry, giving drinks to the
thirsty, healing the sick, rendering service to those in need. In general, as St. Thomas defined it,
agape is “willing the good of another.” It is the act of sharing, or giving more than what is just
because justice is just the minimum of love. In the language of contemporary thinkers, this is love
as “affirmation of the other’s being.” “Being-with-others,” “being conscious of the other’s
presence.”
In Joseph Fletcher`s situation ethics agapeic love is absolute norm the absolute framework
for the determination of the right thing to do or to wrong avoid. In moral reasoning it is ask act of
is it a loving? Fr. Bernard haring the advocate of ethics of personalism was also quoted as saying
the heart of the moral life is charity to one neighbors.
Justice And Fairness: Promoting The Common Good As A Moral Framework
a. Social justice
Social justice is equal access to wealth, opportunities, and privileges within society.
Hence, promotion of social justice is equivalent to promotion of the common good. It may
also be said that promotion of the common good is promotion of social justice. The
common good is explained as follows:
In ordinary political discourse, the “common good” refers to those facilities—
whether material, cultural or institutional-that the members of a community provide to all
members in order to fulfill a relational obligation they all have to care for certain interests
that they have in common. Some canonical examples of the common good in a modern
liberal democracy include: the road system; public parks; police protection and public
safety; courts and the judicial system; public schools; museums and cultural institutions;
public transportation; civil liberties, such as the freedom of speech and the freedom of
association; the system of property; clean air and clean water; and national defense. The
term itself may refer either to the interests that members have in common or to the facilities
that serve common interests. For example, people may say, “the new public library will
serve the common good” or “the public library is part of the common good.”
b. Justice as the Minimum Demand of Love
William Luijpen referred to justice as the minimum demand of love. Which means
that love is more, give more than what is just. Mathematically, if love is 100 percent of
being from others, The Justice may just be only 10 percent. A just employer pay a minimum
wage to employees, a loving employers, pays more than the minimum wage, even when
it’s hurt. If there are two people lost in the cold and one has two jacket and other has none,
justice demands that one should share the other his jacket the least that he can do but that
it is the minimum demand of love.
c. Distributive Justice
Distributive justice is “justice that is concerned with the distribution or allotment
of goods, duties, and privileges in concert with the merits of individuals, and the best
interest of society” the following have features of distributive justice.
i. Egalitarianism is the doctrine of political and social equality. “No person shall be
deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall any person be

2. denied the equal protection of the law.” This is not equalization in terms of quantity; it is
equalization in terms of entitlement to due process of law and equal protection of the law.
ii. Capitalist and free-market systems let the law of demand and supply follow its course.
Ideally it is a self- regulation process. It lets any excess of demand be regulated by the
limits of supply and lets any excess of supply be regulated by the limits of demand. This
means no artificial control or regulations. It is supposed to arrive naturally at its own
equilibrium. Free market is supposed to be an equalizer. During waiting time for natural
course of things, public necessities or utilities may demand immediate intervention which
should be more of an exception than the rule.
iii. Socialists follow the rule, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his
needs.” This requires collective ownership of the means of production, distribution, and
exchange with the aim of operating for use rather than for profit. Possible downside of
this system is there is no motivation for expansion and growth.
iv. Taxation is government’s getting a part of what its people earn in order have money to
spend for public services, operating and maintaining public places or properties for
people`s use. It is practically demanding from taxpayer a minimum of justice to make the
enjoyment of the wealth at least more equitable although not equalizer. It is a government
references with private properties, more or less compelling people to give a share from
the fruits of their labor, a way of compelling diffusion of wealth.
v. Protection and Preservation of Public Welfare – The government has constitution-
granted power to govern, to make, adopt and enforce laws for the protection and
preservation of public health, justice, morals, order, safety and security and welfare. The
Constitution also gives a government the right to take private property for public use
under the doctrine of eminent domain.
JUSTICE AS MORAL FRAMEWORK, BE IT SOCIAL OR DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE,
STATES THAT WHATEVER PROMOTES JUSTICE IS THE MORALLY RIGHT
THING TO DO.
The Better Moral Framework: Garner and Rosen Synthesis
Richard T. Garner and Bernard Rosen (1967) tried to identify the most applicable criterion
of the rightness and wrongness of action, the goddess or badness of character or of the personal
life. For these authors, the best framework is the synthesis of the theological and deontological
framework. The rightness or wrongness of action and the goodness or badness of characters or
traits is a function of (meaning it depends on) not only the end object or consequence of applying
a rule (rule utilitarianism) or doing an act (act utilitarianism) but also the other bases like one’s
sense of duty and good will (rule or a deontology). This means one arrives at an assessment of the
rightness or wrongness of an act goodness or badness of a character or traits by considering not
only the consequence (affecting not only the self but also others) of applying a rule or doing an act
but considering other factor like a situation or condition involved.