Ethics is the science which deals with those acts that proceed from the deliberative will of

man, especially as they are ordered to the ultimate end of man.

FEELINGS AND REASONS AND MORAL

ORIGIN PHILOSOPHERS MORAL DECISION- IMPARTIALITY AS COURAGE
MAKING MINIMUM FOR
ORIGIN MORALITY

Hume and Kant operate with two somewhat different conceptions of morality itself, which
helps explain some of the differences between their respective approaches to
moral philosophy. The most important difference is that Kant sees law, duty, and obligation as
the very heart of morality, while Hume does not. In this respect, Kant’s conception of morality
resembles what Bernard Williams calls “the moral system”, which defines the domain of
morality primarily in terms of an unconditionally binding and inescapable form of obligation.

According to Hume, moral judgments typically concern the character traits and motives behind
human actions. To make a moral judgment is to detect, by means of a sentiment, the operation
of a virtuous or vicious quality of mind. The sentiment here is a “peculiar” kind of feeling—
namely, a feeling of approval (love, pride) or disapproval  (hatred, humility.) We call the traits
that elicit our approval “virtues”, and those that elicit our disapproval “vices”. Sentiments of
approval and disapproval are passions, but they tend to be “soft and gentle” and therefore
easily mistaken for thoughts or ideas.

Hume argues, however, that only those sentiments experienced from a “general point of view”
count as genuinely moral. For example, a person might hate or envy the courage of her enemy
but this is not necessarily a moral response. The moral sentiment is experienced when she
considers her enemy’s courage from a “general point of view”. When a person considers things
from this point of view, she looks upon them as a “judicious spectator”, who is disinterested
but not emotionally unaffected by the scene she beholds, rather than eliminating her
sentiments, the judicious spectator enlarges them by means of sympathy, which enables her to
resent the misery of others or rejoice in their happiness.

Kant offers a very different account of moral judgment. He focuses on the first-person
judgments an agent (not a spectator) must make about how to behave. In his view, the primary
question is whether a particular mode of conduct is permissible, required, or forbidden in light
of the moral law, and sentiment or emotion has no authority in this matter. Answering the
question requires an operation of reason by means of which the agent determines whether her
principle or “maxim” of conduct conflicts with the moral law. Because she is an imperfect and
finite rational being, the law presents itself to her as a “categorical imperative” 
Kant and Hume are clearly opposed on the question of whether reason or feeling has the final
say in moral matters. Hume assigns reason to a subordinate role, while Kant takes reason to be
the highest normative authority. However, it is important not to misunderstand the nature of
their opposition. Hume offers an empirical explanation of the moral judgments made in
“common life”, which he takes to be part of his broader science of human nature. This is his
main focus. By contrast, Kant makes observations about the “common” use of reason in
morality, but this is not his main focus. He says relatively little about what is going on in our
heads or the surrounding social environment when we actually make moral judgments. What
Kant insists on is that such responses can be justified only by pure reason, which is the only
faculty capable of understanding the unconditional necessity of the moral law’s commands.
Emotion or feeling plays an important role in guiding our application of this law to particular
maxims in concrete circumstances, but feeling’s role is definitely subordinate to reasons.

PHILOSOPHERS

David Hume (1711-1776)

 Philosopher, historian, economist, and essayist

 Argued to regulate actions using reason and that reason has dominion over feelings or
emotions

Max Ferdinand Scheler

 German ethical philosopher and phenomenologist

 Emotion is the most important aspect in human existence
 He asserted that emotions/feelings are inherent, objective, and it exists even if you have
not experienced it before (a priori)

Immanuel Kant

 Reason is the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process
of logic
 Kant argued that reason alone is the bases for morality, and once the person
understood this basic requirements for morality; he or she would see that acting morally
is the same as acting rationally.

Dr. Rachels (2004)

 Argued that morality “at the very least is the effort to guide one’s action based on the
most logical choice (reason) while giving equal importance to the interest of each
person affected by your decision (impartiality)”
FEELINGS AND MORAL DECISION-MAKING

Emotions, that is to say feelings and intuitions, play a major in most of the ethical decisions
make. Most people do not realize how much their emotions direct their moral choice. But
experts think it is impossible to make any important moral judgments without emotions.

Inner-directed negative emotions, like guilt, embarrassment, and shame often motivate people
to act ethically.

Outer-directed negative emotions, on the other hand, aim to discipline or punish. For example,
people often direct anger, disgust, or contempt at those who have acted unethically. This
discourages others from behaving the same way.

Positive emotions like gratitude and admiration, which people may feel when they see acting
with compassion or kindness, can prompt people to help others.

Emotions evoke by suffering, such as sympathy and empathy, often lead people to act ethically
toward others. Indeed, empathy is the central moral emotion that most commonly motivates
prosocial activity such as altruism, cooperation, and generosity. So, while we may believe that
our moral decisions are influenced most by our philosophy or religious value in truth, our
emotions paly a significant role in our ethical decision-making.

MORAL EMOTIONS

Self-conscious Emotions

For example self-conscious such as guilt, shame, and embarrassment motivate people to follow
to societies moral norms. Study show that people with the most acute sense of guilt tend to be
among the moral and cooperative citizens.

Other – condemning emotions

People are also motivated to do the right thing because they know that they would face other
condemning emotions such as, contempt, anger, and discuss it that they did not do so. For
example, when Paul’s friends – cheated on his wife they will likely feel anger and he will feel
shame. His friends may punish him for this wrong.

“if I accidentally drop something, a bag of chips or an empty bottle I may take a few steps and
say, “hey I can just keep on going or keep on walking but definitely that feeling of guilt or
shame of what I did make me actually steer me to the right decision and actually go back and
pick up that bag of chips or bottled water.
Other – praising emotions, such as gratitude, and moral emotions could sometimes see people
feel the right thing can stimulate people to act prosocially. Study show that people will be more
generous and helpful themselves after watching others be generous and helpful.

Other – suffering emotions such as sympathy, compassion, and empathy. These emotions often
encourage people to help others in need. Some experts believe that empathy is the most
important moral emotion. HUMAN MORALITY IS FIRMLY ANCHORED IN THE SOCIAL EMOTIONS
WITH EMPATHY AS ITS CORE.

Despite out best efforts humans are innately poor decision makers we tend to go without gut,
sometimes we get lucky, often times we don’t. The truth is we are naturally wired to avoid risks it’s just
baked to out DNA. For the earliest human making assumptions about the world around them and trying
to avoid danger was a matter of life and death. Today, the world has changed exponentially but out
inherent wiring has not in fact psychologist has seen that humans experience a large number of
cognitive biases that affect our ability to navigate the complicated world around us. We still have a
tremendous tendency toward risk aversion focusing toward pain of loses far more than the benefits of
potential gains

Steps of moral decision-making

1. Gather facts – before making moral decisions, it is important that necessary facts be gathered. Ethical
dilemmas can be resolved simply by clarifying those facts of the case question.

2. Define the ethical issues – ethical issues are considered as completing interest or good. This will help
the person to analyze the interests that are contradicting to one another.

3. Review relevant ethical guidelines – it is important to determine different ethical guidelines to

determine which ethical guideline must be applied to the issue. Constitutional and natural law must also
be taken into account.

4. Obtain consultation – in as much no one can really be an expert in making moral decisions, it is
important to consult to persons which are competent in terms of morality. One may consult religious
leader, well revered teacher, or an elder in society who can have more wisdom than us.

5. list the alternative courses of action – making moral decisions require creative thinking which will help
one identify various alternative course of action.

6. Compare the alternative with the principles – from the alternatives, the next step is to connect
alternatives with moral principles.

MORAL REASONING – applies critical analysis to specific events to determine what is right or wrong, and
what people ought to do in a particular situation. Both philosophers and psychologists study moral
reasoning. How we make day-to-day decisions like “what should I wear?” is similar to haw we make
moral decisions like “should I lie or tell the truth?” the brain processes both in generally the same way.
Moral reasoning typically applies logic and moral theories, such as deontology or utilitarianism, to
specific situations or dilemmas. However, people are not especially good at moral reasoning. Indeed, the
term “moral dumbfounding” describes the fact that people often reach strong moral conclusions that
they cannot logically defend. In fact, evidence shows that the moral principle or theory a person chooses
to apply is often, ironically, based on their emotions, not on logic. Their choice is usually influenced by
internal biases or outside pressures, such as the self-serving bias or the desire to confirm. So, while we
likely believe we approach ethical dilemmas logically and rationally, the truth is our moral reasoning is
usually influenced by intuitive, emotional reactions.

Impartial –

7 steps to moral reasoning

1. Identify the facts –

Is there a moral dilemma? What do we need to know? Who is involved in the situation? When does it
occur?

2. Identify the stakeholders - it is important to identify the stakeholders who will be affected by the
ethical decision to be made. This is also the first point at which ethical theories might be applied since
the idea of moral stakeholders can be tied both to consequential and non-consequential theories.

3. Articulate the dilemma

4. List the alternatives

What are the available options?

It is important to list down at least 3. As Aristotle remarks, there are at least 2, and these often
represents the extremes. Nothing is ever either black or white; sometimes one is force to think in terms
of a compromise doesn’t exactly conform to your personal notion of what is the right thing to do

5. Compare the alternatives with the principles – in considering and evaluating the options, it will help to
be guided by the following approaches. This is the point at which the various sources of Christian
morality, ethical theories and principles come into play. One will discover here that there is much
conflict among these. There are no easy solutions.

6. Weigh the consequences - What benefits and what harms will each option produce, and which
alternative will lead to the best overall consequences?

7. Make a decision – ethicists that this is the most difficult part of the process of moral decision making.