REASON AS REQUIREMENT IN ETHICS

Reason is a suitable way of knowing for ethical decisions when one does not wish to question
their perception of an issue. It proves useful when consequences are considered while
understanding an issue. Reason lacks the attachment that emotion carries, it has the ability to
remain detached from a situation
Moral judgments must be backed by good reasons. Feelings can overwhelm reason .

 aArsgsuemsse natrsg ucamne gnots w –r ocnogn isni dseor m faacntys w aanyds .

pDroin ncoipt lleest  r –eavsoind bpere ojuvdeircwehse. lmR ecdo bgyn ifz e linthat.g

MORAL REASONING

The morally right thing to do is always the thing best supported by the arguments
 Our decisions must be guided as much as possible by reason.
 Our feelings may be irrational and may be nothing but products of prejudice, selfishness, or
cultural conditioning.
  We cannot rely on our feelings, no matter how powerful they might be.
When it comes to ethical principles and justification, reason is the most useful way of knowing,
and the most important way of deciding how to act morally. This is because reason is based on
logic (at least more so than the other ways of knowing), thus it is less likely to be influenced
and changed due to the environment, your own experiences, etc. The other ways of knowing
are all
much more emotionally based and feel like they are more liable to change. Reas on is us
eful as moral indicator because it should always stay the same and be the most unbiased way
of knowing , which al ows ethical principles to be justified objectively. For example,
memories can be erased, made, changed ,etc. which would make it a less valid method in
the justification of ethical principles. However, reason is centered around facts and direct
links, which can be traced back and forth – reason can thus be the same for everyone, making
it a more consistent method of knowing how to act morally.

IMPARTIALITY AS REQUIREMENT IN ETHICS

*fair, just, equitable, impartial, unbiased, dispassionate, objective mean free from favor toward
either or any s ide.
Morality requires the impartial consideration of each individual’s interests. Each individual’s
interests are equal importance and the welfare of others is as important as our own. This
is a proscription of arbitraries.
SITUATIONS INVOLVING IMPARTIALITY

1. Each individual’s interests are equally important, and no one should get special treatment.
-  Impartiality in its true sense requires that subjective distinctions be set aside. To
illustrate the difference between the two notions: a National Society that refuses to
provide its services to a specific group of people, because of their ethnic origin, fails
to observe the rule of non-discrimination; whereas a National Society staff member
who, in the exercise of his functions, favours a friend by giving him better treatment
than that given to others, contravenes the principle of impartiality. Therefore, staff
and
volunteers should be trained to ensure that correct behaviour becomes almost a
reflex.
 2.If there is no good reason for treating differently ,then discrimination is unacceptable
arbitrary.
-  If you're in a contest you'd better hope the judges are impartial, that is, that they aren't
biased toward one competitor over another. When someone's partial to something
they take its part. Impartial means no part has yet been taken.

Example of Impartial Decisions

  Impartiality is the idea that the same ethical standards are applied to everyone. 
-  Self interest needs to be balanced   with needs of others. 
-  Do not value one person or group more than any other . 
-  Each person is an individual and  should receive equal res pect and consideration.  
-  Organizations and institutions  –  consider how the people  associated with these are
affected  . 

FEELINGS AND REASONS: Upsurge of feelings is natural and what we do with them is what
makes us ethical or unethical. 

FEELINGS DEFINED

These are mental associations and reactions to emotions which originate in the neocortical
r e g ion s o f t he b r a i n , a d a r e s u b je c ti v e b i g in f lu
m e m o ri e s . T s e a r e ne x t t h i n g th a t h a p pe ns a ft e r
e n c e d b y p rs n a l e x p e r i n e , b e l i f s a n d
h a v in g a n em ot io n , i n v o lv e c o g n i ti v e in p u t, usually
subconscious and cannot be measured precisely.
EMOTION vs. FEELING

Feelings are sparked by emotions and colored by personal experiences, beliefs, memories, and
thoughts linked to that particular emotion. Strictly speaking, a feeling is the side product of your
brain perceiving an emotion and assigning a certain meaning to it. - For example, you
remember a happy memory by looking at the family picture, you may remember you we’re in joy at
that moment but at present you may feel sad.

Essentially, emotions are physical and instinctive. While they are complex and involve a variety
of physical and cognitive responses (many of which are not well understood), their general
purpose is to produce a specific response to a stimulus. Emotions can be powerful experiences,
b u t t h e y u s u l l y d o n o t la s t lo ng . T h e s o m e t im
a re a n g r y a t a c o lle a g u e a n d w a n t t o ye ll a t h e r.
e s ake us d o th in g s w e la t e r r g r et . - T o d a y, w e
can lead us to makeTchoices
o mothat
r rhurt
ow , w e winterests.
our long-term is h Doing
w esomething
h a dthatayou
c tdoednot want
m oto rdoe is one
r aoftio
the n a llyof, irrationality - hence
hallmarks
no matter how compelling our desire was at the time. By transforming goals and desires in the

REASON DEFINED

Reason – a form of personal justification which changes from person to person based on their
own ethical and moral code, as well as prior experience. It stands for the faculties of rational
reflection, sensations and experience, memory and inference, and any judgments that may be
exercised without relying on a religious faith that is unsupported by reason.
FEELING AND REASON INTERTWINED

  Feelings are not limited to good and bad, happy and sad moods. They also influence
 judgments, and hence decisions, with feelings as mild as contentment, safety, and perceived
ease or difficulty of tasks to be faced. In short, they mess with our thinking minds in all sorts
of ways.
  “Sensitivity requires rationality to complete it, and vice versa. There is no siding onto which
emotions can be shunted so as not to impinge on thought.” -Mary Midgley
  Plato saw reason and emotion as two horses pulling a chariot, with the charioteer struggling
to make them work as a team.
  Emotion is not the opposite of reason. It is a different form of it. Emotion is always prompting
us to serve and advance our needs and interests.

WHEN REASON OVERRULED FEELING

We rely on our reason to guard against feelings that may reflect a bias, or a sense of
inadequacy, or a desire simply to win an argument, and also to refine and explain a felt
conviction that passes the test of critical reflection and discussion. We rely on feelings to move
us to act morally, and to ensure that our reasoning is not only logical but also humane.
WHEN EMOTION OVERRULED REASON

Emotion creates a strong opinion that is hard for reason to overcome when emotion takes over it
is hard to think of the consequences of one’s actions. It can also be constructive when working
by itself in the decision making process.
EMOTION ALONE

When emotion is left as the only way of knowing used to make ethical decisions, these decisions
are often made with little to no regard to the consequences of our actions. However, when faced
with a situation where one has prior experience, the emotions that are used to make a decision
have been tested before, thus providing a solid ground for ethical decision-making. Paul
Ekman devised six basic emotions: anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness and surprise.

REASON ALONE

Reason, when removed from emotion, allows a person to make conscious decisions based on
fact, with no reference to personal involvement. The use of reason as a way of knowing, allows
fo r th k n o w er t o se e h e c o n e q u e nc e s o f th ir a c t
T h e re a r e lim it a t io n s t o d e c isi o n s m a d e b a sed o n
i o n s t h r o u g h o u t t h e d e c is i on - m a k in g p r o c e s s .
r e a o n a lo n e , p e r c e p t io n f sit u a tio n s is n o t
questioned as it may be with an emotional decision
“Remove emotion and we are not left rational, but adrift without meaning.”   (Neuroscientist Antonio
Damasio studied people injured in specific brain localities responsible for emotion.)
Short Debate: In decision making, what must overrule, emotion or reasoning?

Ethical Dilemma: A sample case related to feeling vs. reasoning

Nursing often deals with ethical dilemmas in the clinical arena. A case study demonstrates an
ethical dilemma faced by healthcare providers who care for and treat Jehovah's Witnesses who
are placed in a critical situation due to medical life-threatening situations. A 20-year-old,
pregnant, Black Hispanic female presented to the Emergency Department (ED) in critical
condition following a single-vehicle car accident. She exhibited signs and symptoms of internal
bleeding and was advised to have a blood transfusion and emergency surgery in an attempt to
save her and the
 fetus. She refused to accept blood or blood products and rejected the surgery as well. Her
refusal was based on a fear of blood transfusion due to her belief in Bible scripture. The ethical
dilemma presented is whether to respect the patient's autonomy and compromise standards of
care or ignore the patient's wishes in an attempt to save her life. This paper presents the clinical
case, identifies the ethical dilemma, and discusses virtue ethical theory and principles that apply
to this situation.
What is Ethical requirement or ethical standard?

* Ethical standards are a set of principles established by the founders of the organization to
communicate its underlying moral values. This code provides a framework that can be used as
a reference for decision making processes.
* These standards are an important part of an organization’s culture. They establish the
parameters of behaviour that owners and top executives expect from employees and also from
suppliers, at least to the extent of their relationship with the organization. A corporate
governance system will put a lot of effort into communicating and enforcing these principles.
This is mostly done through behaviour modelling, which means that top executives should set
the example of how lower-level employees should act.
* These principles should serve also as guidelines for decision-making processes to help
employees align their personal criteria with the company’s perspectives as different ethical issues
arise within normal business activities. This moral “compass” is crucial to maintain unethical
behaviours down to a minimum, mostly in managerial positions.

hers, even for society as a whole. Individuals are able to act in such as way as to enhance or decrease the quality of the lives of others, and

 Highlighting acts that enhance the well-being of other people.

 Highlighting acts that harm the well-being of other people.

When an act enhances the well-being of others, it is worthy of praise from others, when an act
harms or decreases the well-being of others, it is worthy of criticism. For many people, the desire
to receive these responses from others guides the development of their personal set of ethical standards.

may feel the decision conflicts with his own ethical reasoning. While some people believe that a person’s individual rights should be preserved r
Ethical Reasoning and the Law
The government creates and enforces laws in order to protect the citizens and the unity of
society. These laws carry punishments those who violate them in the form of fines, community
service, probation, and imprisonment. 
Each individual develops his own core values and ethical reasoning according to his view of
integrity and honesty, and ability to look past the self-justification and self-deception common to
all people. Acts that have been deemed illegal may not coincide with an individual’s personal
ethical beliefs, and vice versa. Laws are often created out of widespread social convention,
whether they are seen to be fair and ethical by all or not. Some people strongly believe that
certain acts are unethical, and should therefore be made illegal. Others find certain laws to be
unethical according to their own reasoning, and feel they are a hindrance to their personal
human rights.
For example, Bob believes that the death penalty is unethical and that is violates human rights.
In the jurisdiction in which he resides, however, the death penalty is a punishment occasionally
handed down by the judicial system. While Bob does not believe that the death penalty is
ethical, the law was made on the belief that it is necessary for the greater good of society.

Ethical Decisions in the Legal System

On occasion, those who work in law enforcement and the legal system find that the ethical
decisions they are required to make on a subject conflicts with the law. This may occur, for
example, when a judge finds that the resolution of a case, as dictated by law, conflicts with his
personal ethical reasoning. In such a case, the judge must follow the laws of the jurisdiction, even
if it seems to create a moral dilemma for him personally.

Institutional Ethics
In some instances, individual entities can punish or take corrective actions against a person
who has breached the company’s ethical code. For example, an accounting firm hires new
employees, who are required to read and sign the employee handbook. This handbook states
that employees must not let their personal bias interfere in any business transactions.
 Allowing personal bias or opinion to dictate how a business transaction is done is not necessarily
against any law set forth by the government, but it may result in the employee’s termination as it
violates the company’s policy and institutional ethics. In serious cases, the employer may be able
to recover damages through a civil lawsuit for such a violation.

The Ethical requirements of impartiality

Impartiality Defined

Impartiality (also called evenhandedness or fair-mindedness) is a principle of justice holding

that decisions should be based on objective criteria, rather than on the basis of bias, prejudice, or
preferring the benefit to one person over another for improper reasons.
Impartial Decisions

Impartiality is the idea that the same ethical standards are applied to everyone. Ethics do not
value one person or group of people more than any other does. Impartiality requires that in
making ethical decisions we balance our self-interest with the interest of others
The requirement of impartiality

   Each individual’s interest ar e equally important, and no one should get special treatment
   If there is no good reason for treating people differently, then discrimination is
unacceptably arbitrary

How to manage Impartiality

LEAVE YOUR BIASES AT THE DOOR

Conducting investigations of employee behaviour or disputes between two people can be a

c o m p li c a t ed ta s k. W h e n ha n d le d p ro p e r ly a n d
fr ic tio n , lo w m o ra le o r c o s t ly l it i g a t io n . If y o u d e
p r o fe s s i o n a l ly , y o u c an a vo i d is s u e s s u c h a s
c id e t o t a ck l e th e s e m a t te r s in h o u s e , it ’s i m p
f u h e r
o rt a n t that you leave your own biases out of it. Always remain neutral to the situation (and
the people involved) and give everyone a fair chance to vocalise their thoughts / feelings no
matter their race, religion, cultural background, upbringing, neighbourhood / hometown, political
stance, age or gender.

DON’T TAKE SIDES  

Never let your own suspicions sway you into taking sides. It’s natural to want to sympathise with
a particular party, especially if someone claims to be victimised or appears hurt / upset. But
always remember that taking sides is not being impartial. And it’s important to remind yourself that all
situations are different, and all have the power to surprise. Sometimes, there is a victim and
a perpetrator. Other times, the victim turns out to be the perpetrator. And most times, both
parties
ayoreu vniectvimers k anodw pwehrpaet trhaeto orust ct o mone m aanyo tbhe.r. So have an
open mind and remain neutral because

ENCOURAGE OPEN DIALOGUE

The easiest way to resolve a problem in the workplace is to allow people the freedom to
express themselves. Whilst it’s essential to schedule in private meetings, it’s just as important to
encourage group discussion. For instance open dialogue between two opposing parties can
often be the quickest way to come to a solution. Appoint a mediator (HR manager or line
manager) to lead the agenda, to keep all discussions on track, and to ensure that debates never
turn into full blown arguments.

BE HONEST WITH YOURSELF

If you are unable to remain neutral about a particular workplace issue, it’s imperative that you
take the right action and remove yourself from the situation. Don’t let your biases or personal
relationships cloud your judgement and try to have better awareness of your own emotions.
Emotions can affect your decision making and control the way you behave, so having a better
understanding of your own feelings is important. As soon as you feel that you are no longer able
to manage your neutrality and impartiality, appoint someone else at your level who can, or take
the investigations out of house. It’s better to be safe than sorry, so even if you have minor
concerns, consult someone else for help.

Impartiality and ethical theory

In Euthypro, Socrates expresses astonishment that a young man would prosecute his own
father for murder. The conventional assumption he seems to be making (perhaps
disingenuously) is that filial relationships impose special constraints that may override other
consideration, even in the gravest matter. For Euthyphro, by contrast, a murder is a murder.
The fact that it was committed
by his father has no bearing upon what he is required to do about it. He must prosecute his father
 just as he would a stranger.
There are at least three distinct standards that run through these problems. One concerns the
substance of moral norms. We grant the powerful and persistent force of self interest in our
lives, and assume that morality must somehow give us reasons for constraining such motives.
We grant the rules and principles of conduct will often be useless or counter-productive in
purely local or short range terms, and assume that morality must give us reasons for acting in
principle in spite of it. We grant that our favourites and friends have special claims on our
attentions, and assume that morality must give us reasons for occasionally denying such
claims. In order to provide such reasons, moral theories standardly argue that our selfish, local
and purely personal interest are morally indistinguishable from many others and that reason
require us to treat similar cases similarly. Morality thus requires (at least sometimes) that we not
play favorites, or manipulate rules to our personal advantage, or make ad hoc expectations for
ourselves. In that sense it requires us to be impartial.
©1991 by The University of Chicago. All right reserved. 0014-1704/91/0104-0111$01.00

Conclusion

Reason requires impartiality, but not neutrality. Basil George Mitchell argues that impartiality
means not that one refrains from having a conclusion or one remain neutral on value issues, but
that one is fair in his/her arguments and in assessing the arguments of his/her opponent.
Reason is the most important way of knowing when acting morally. it does not change based on
personal
experiences and variations that occur in human nature. Emotion, perception, imagination,
language, faith, intuition, and memory are all susceptible to changes and differences between
different individuals, but at the core of “cold hard reason,” the outcome of a logical argument
should be the same for everyone, no matter what.
In discussion, no one is required to respect our feelings. We can’t change someone’s mind
because we’re angry or hurt. We may change what they do out of guilt or peer pressure, but this
is the result of manipulation not conviction. If we want to convince anyone, we must use reason.
Reason is the only way for human beings to build common ground into a common good. On that
we must rely.
Reason and impartiality will always be associate when it comes to moral judgement and
decisions.
Sources:

https://prezi.com/tfqmvcyiv0lb/what-roles-do-emotion-and-reason-play-in- ethics/?
fbclid=IwAR3idEORynRms8H7d93mlwMgVvgwdHXO3EZZLgSwC_7QSYTmB1-
Oy9fQL7w
https://doingethics.com/Blog/2008/05/reason-and-
feelings.html?fbclid=IwAR3zacKQcZryPEs6kEcV2rvTD1lgujU9LkpfhwkFRLg_oaDcWwfCqn86_ 
mE

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19105511