MORAL DELIBERATION/ETHICAL DECISION MAKING

Given the passion and intensity with which

We debate moral questions…we might be tempted to think
That our moral convictions are fixed once and for all,
By upbringing or faith, beyond the reach of reason.
But if this were true, moral persuasion would be inconceivable,
And what we take to be public debate…would be nothing
More than a volley of dogmatic assertions, an ideological food fight.
Michael J. Sandel

________________________________________

How should one act in a moral situation? Are there rules for acting in a particular way or manner?
What considerations should enter into one’s decision-making? Can’t someone else make the decision
for me?

For Catholics, these questions are everyday occurrences. In a very instructive introduction to his
book, Moral Discernment, Richard M. Gula writes:

In the church, many have told me that they grew up in a very paternalistic ecclesial
environment where they were not encouraged to think for themselves. In fact, some didn’t
even know that they were supposed to think! As one person put it, “We were told just to pray,
pay, and obey.” Bishops and priests were expected to have all the answers, were sought for
answers, and generally gave answers to every practical moral question put to them. Now,
people are trying to learn how to live in the church after the Second Vatican Council, which
encouraged them to take responsibility for both discovering moral values and charting the
direction of their lives.i

Gula seems to be saying that today, more than ever, there is a need to do moral discernment. But
what this means exactly is difficult to pin down especially since we are now only beginning to realize
that moral decisions are not the exclusive domain of the church and its officials. Everyone who has a
conscience has the responsibility to make his or her own moral decisions.
A moral decision is required when one encounters a moral question: Should I cheat to pass a very
important exam? Should I promise to pay money I owe someone even if I know I wouldn’t be able to
pay? I need a job urgently. Is it all right to beef up my resumé to improve my chances of getting the
job?
We usually begin to answer a moral question with an opinion or personal con viction about the
right thing to do. Then we reflect on the reason for our conviction and look for the principle upon
which the conviction is based. However, this principle is not usually etched in stone; a situation could
arise where the principle is called into question. For example, I know that I shouldn’t lie in order to
get out of a sticky situation that I find myself in. But my life depends on getting out of the situation!
Here, the principle that I have always held – “I should not lie” – is challenged by the situation, and so
am thrown into confusion. “Feeling the force of that confusion, and the pressure to sort it out, is the
impulse to philosophy,” to moral reflection.
This new situation of confusion demands that we revise our initial judgment about the right thing
to do. It demands that we even rethink the principle that we initially held.

As we encounter new situations, we move back and forth between our judgments and our
principles, revising each in light of the other. This turning of mind, from the world of action to
the realm of reasons and back again, is what moral reflection consists in. ii
Foundations of Moral Values - 22

In the following, we will discuss a worksheet or framework for moral deliberation. The following
framework is not a rigid process that one simply follows without wrestling with the dilemma. In other
words, the steps demand a diligent and careful reading of the moral dilemma.

1. Identifying and setting up the Ethical Problem

What is the ethical problem? First, the ethical problem must be identified. It helps to be able to
state or define, succinctly, the ethical issue involved in the case and to make sure that this is not
confused with other elements of the problem. (Perhaps the ethical problem can be stated in one or
two sentences – very much like a thesis statement that defines the problem to be tackled.)
It is important to realize that every ethical problem has more than one component and that not
every component involves an ethical decision. For example, in a case involving a decision to bribe or
not to bribe a government employee to speed up the process of granting your application for a
business license. This employee is not asking for much; besides he is underpaid. We should separate
the fact that the employee is underpaid from the ethical problem of bribing. And the issue should be
stated clearly. The question is not whether the employee is underpaid and so there is injustice in that
regard, but whether you should bribe him to expedite things that is ethically problematic.

2. What are the relevant facts?

What immediate facts have the most bearing on the ethical decision that must be made in this case?
Include any potential economic, social, or political pressures.
We need to list only the facts that bear on the ethical decision. Sometimes, we arrive at wrong
moral decisions because we have not really taken the relevant facts into consideration, or we have
taken more than the necessary facts into consideration. For example, that there are more honest
women than men employed by the government has no bearing on the question of whether or not to
bribe.

3. Who are the stakeholders?

It is important to identify the stakeholders who will be affected by the ethical decision to be made. It
will also help to identify the corresponding obligations that one has toward the various stakeholders.
For instance, one must consider the stakeholder who stands to lose more from the decision more
seriously than others.
This is the first point at which ethical theories can be applied since the idea of moral stakeholders
can be tied both to consequential and non-consequential theories. For example, from a utilitarian per-
spective, the interest of the majority must be taken into consideration – therefore, the majority
stakeholders must be recognized as a group. Non-consequential theories (duty-based) require us to be
aware of all stakeholders potentially affected by our decision. Recognized duties – like justice,
gratitude, self-improvement, etc. – allow us not only to list stakeholders but also to decide on who
they are. For example, if, as a government employee, you are obligated by the duty of service to
honor your implied contract with the public to give them the service they require, that public must be
listed as a stakeholder in your decision.
At this stage too, it will also help to get to know the perspective of the stakeholders. One can do
this by stepping into the shoes of the various claimants and trying to determine, as honestly as one
can, what they would prefer you to do in this situation. This is one of the most difficult tasks in
ethical decision-making. The key here is to try your best to see the problem from their perspectives.

4. What are the available options?

It is important to list down at least three or even more available options. As Ar istotle says, there are
at least two options readily available from the very beginning, and these two often represent the
extremes. But nothing is ever either black or white; sometimes one is forced to think in terms of a
“middle ground,” even if that, strictly speaking, does not exactly conform to your personal notion of
what is the right thing to do. A genuine “Golden Mean” iii is not simply a watered-down decision; in
 Moral Deliberation/Ethical Decision Making - 23

fact, it bears the marks of the internal struggle that accompanies every bit of hard thinking. It is at this
stage that reason struggles to transcend what we feel.
In considering and evaluating the options, it will help to be guided by ethical principles. This is
the point at which the various sources of Christian morality, ethical theories and principles could
come into play. These various considerations and approaches for moral decision-making may also be
stated in the following questions:
– What benefits and what harms will each option produce, and which alternative will lead
to the best overall consequence? (Utilitarianism)
– What moral rights do the affected parties have, and which option best respects those
rights? (Kant)
– Which course of action advances the common good?
– Which decision enables me to be and act in ways that develop my highest potential as a
person? (Virtue)
– Which option treats everyone the same, except where there is a morally justifiable
reason not to, and does not show favoritism or discrimination? (Justice and Fairness)

One will discover here that there could be much conflict among these principles. There are no easy
solutions. While one person may use utilitarianism to support his decision, another may decide to cite
Kant’s universalizing principle against using any person as a means to an end. What is important here
is to use only those justifications that apply directly to one’s decision.
In the following, very brief and summative explanation of some ethical principles will be given.
These will be the subject matter of future discussions.

Brief Explanation of Some Ethical Principles:iv

a. Christian Sources. The Christian moral life derives from (and therefore, moral decisions should
be inspired by) the sacred books of the Old and New Testaments, in particular from the ideas, values
and concerns of Jesus Christ. In other words, the moral teachings of the biblical writings should be
consulted whenever necessary. Since we are a Church – a Christian community – our moral decisions
should also be informed by the official teachings of the ecclesiastical magisterium and the concrete
practice adhered to by the Church. Ecclesiastical magisterium here refers to the teachings of the
councils and the pope, bishops’ conferences.
Christian reflection has concluded that all beings not only come from God as their First Cause but
also return to Him as to their perfection as the Final Cause. Thus, the Final Goal of the human being
according to which he acts deliberately by reason is God Himself. Thus, we can also glean that the
ethical life is one that pursues the absolute Good as its end, its fulfillment and perfection. Karl
Peschke writes –

If man has been given an objective final end by the Creator, he will be under the obligation
to make this objective end his subjective end – in other words, to strive after it. And when
he looks to that end, an order which has to be followed will become visible to him: the
moral order. This moral order is shown to us through the moral law.v

b. Common-Good. One can trace the beginnings of the notion of common good back to such
philosophers as Plato, Aristotle, etc. The notion supposes that the good of individuals is inextricably
linked to the good of the polis, the community. Thus for Aristotle, ethics is really a prologue to
politics.
The common good consists primarily of having social institutions, and environments working
effectively for the benefit of all people. An example of a particular common good would be the public
health care system. The maintenance of the common good requires the cooperative efforts of citizens.
But these efforts pay off -–in the form of a good or goods to which all members of society have
access, and from whose enjoyment no one can be easily excluded. vi

c. Virtue. This theory is sometimes referred to as “Ethics of Being” as opposed to “Ethics of

Doing”. It assumes that there are certain ideals toward which we should strive, which provide for the
Foundations of Moral Values - 24

full development of our humanity. We discover these ideals by reflecting on what kind of people we
have the potential to become. Virtues are attitudes or dispositions that enable us to be and to act in
ways that develop our highest potential. They enable us to pursue the ideals we have adopted.
Examples of virtues are honesty, courage, compassion, integrity, fairness, temperance, prudence, etc.
When one uses the virtue theory in making a decision, the fundamental question is “What kind of
person will I become if I make this decision?” There is emphasis on “be-ing.”
We develop virtues through learning and through practice. Aristotle suggested that virtues are
habituated. Once acquired, a virtue becomes a characteristic of a person. For example, a person who
has developed the virtue of generosity is referred to as a generous person because he tends to exhibit
this characteristic in all that he does.
A very important idea, which is at the heart of the virtue approach, is “commu nity”. A person’s
character traits are not developed in isolation, but always within and by the communities to which he
belongs – the family, church, school, etc. Thus, this virtue approach invites us to pay attention to the
well being of our communities because they also shape the kind of person we become.
The moral life, then, is not simply following moral rules. It is also a matter of trying to determine
the kind of persons we should be and of attending to the development of character within our
communities and ourselves.vii

d. Rights. What is a right? Simply stated, a right is a justified claim on others. For example, if I
have a right to property, then I have a justified claim to protect my belongings against those who
might steal them. The reverse is also true: Others have the responsibility to respect my property.
Usually, this claim to a right is acknowledged not just by the individual but also by society – more
concretely, the Constitution, which guarantees all sorts of rights.
This theory has its roots in the philosophy of the 18 th century philosopher Immanuel Kant and
others. He suggests that what makes human beings different from mere things is that they have dignity
based on their ability to choose freely what they will do with their lives. Because people are rational,
they have a fundamental moral right to have these choices respected. People are not objects to be
simply manipulated or used merely as means to ends. To treat a per son as a mere means is to use a
person to advance one’s own interest. On the other hand, to treat a person as an end is to respect that
person’s dignity by allowing him the freedom to choose for himself.
This basic right of the person to choose for himself is often used to justify other rights. First, we
have so-called negative rights – right to privacy, the right not to be killed, or the right to do what one
wants with one’s property, etc. These are negative rights because each one imposes a negative duty or
obligation on us – for example, the right to privacy imposes the obligation on us not to intrude into the
private activities of a person. Second, we also have the so-called positive or welfare rights. These are
rights that provide something that people need to secure their well being – like the right to an
education, the right to food, the right to housing, or the right to a job. These positive rights flow from
the fundamental right to freedom which implies that every human being has a fundamental right to
have what is necessary to secure a minimum level of well being.
Sometimes, the rights of individuals can come into conflict. In cases like this, we need to
examine the interests at stake and decide which of the two is the more crucial for secur ing human
dignity. Sometimes too the social costs or the injustice that would result from respecting a right can
be too great. So, while morality certainly calls for respect of individual rights, we must also be aware
of its social repercussions. We must also consider that sense of community, shared values and the
common good that lend itself to an ethics of care, compassion, and concern for others.viii

e. Utilitarianism. Conceived in the 19 th century by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, this
theory suggests that ethical actions are those that provide the greatest balance of good (pleasure) over
evil (pain) for the most number of people. There is hardly a case in which carrying out an option will
not harm someone. By listing down the options and concomitant harms, one is made to weigh the
amount of potential harm involved in each alternative and to understand that avoiding harm is
practically impossible. As utilitarians suggest, in the end, it may be best to choose the option that will
produce the least amount of harm. That option (decision) will be chosen that will produce the greatest
benefits and the least harm.
 Moral Deliberation/Ethical Decision Making - 25

f. Justice and Fairness. No idea has been more consistently linked to ethics and morality than
that of justice. But what does justice mean? In traditional terms, justice means giving each person
what he or she deserves, or what is his or her due. Thus, justice requires that a man get paid according
to the work he has done. Or burdens and benefits should be distributed equally among members of a
group.
But what criteria should we use to determine what is somebody’s due?
The most fundamental principle of justice is one first defined by Aristotle: “Equals should be
treated equally and unequals unequally.” This principle can also be expressed thus – “Individuals
should be treated the same, unless they differ in ways that are relevant to the situation in which they
are involved.” For example, if John and Jane do the same work, and there are no relevant differ ences
between them or the work they are doing, then in justice they should be paid the same wages. If John
is paid more because he is a man, then, justice has not been served.
There are, however, some differences that can be justifiable criteria for treat ing people
differently. The Church, for instance, advocates what it calls a “preferential option for the poor.” This
preference is premised on the fact that the poor are from the very beginning already “unequal” relative
to the wealthy. Because of this social disparity, there are opportunities for human development that
are out of their reach. In dealing with them, then, there is a need to “equalize” things first before
justice can be served. In other words, there is room here not just for justice, but justice and fairness.
Justice and fairness, then, is a central part of ethics and should be given due consideration in our
moral lives.

5. Determine the Most Appropriate Best Course of Action.

On the basis of the evaluation done on the various options, we must now determine the best course of
action – the moral thing to do. Ethicists claim that this is the most difficult part of the process of
moral decision-making. It requires courage – especially when reason suggests one way and what we
feel another way.
Some people make their decisions even prior to the reasoning process. When this happens, it is
possible to end up with a decision that one can then rationalize but not really justify.

6. Double-Checking one’s decision.

It is important to take a second look at the decision to be made. The following are suggested ways of
doing precisely that:
First, we must see to it that our arguments and the position we take are consistent. Ethics is
supposed to provide us with a guide for moral living, and to do so, it must be rational – that is, free of
contradictions.
Second, we must also ask if our arguments are both valid and sound. A valid argument is one
whose premises logically entail its conclusion. An invalid argument on the other hand is one whose
premises do not entail its conclusion. In an invalid argument, one can accept the premises as true and
reject the conclusion without any contradiction. A sound argument, on the other hand, has true
premises and valid reasoning. An unsound argument employs invalid reasoning or has at least one
false premise.
Third, perhaps we can ask the following questions: What are the best and worse-case scenarios if
I choose this particular option? Can I honestly live with myself if I make this de cision? Will I be able
to defend this decision to that claimant who has lost the most or been harmed the most?
Finally, our decision must be “enabling” rather than “dis-abling.” There are decisions that prevent
us from acting any more fruitfully or effectively. These decisions cannot be moral! After all, a moral
decision or action is one that liberates us – develops our potentialities as a person. A decision that
“dis-ables” us prevents our growth as persons.
Catholic moral and pastoral traditions have always made the distinction between “ought” and
“can.” This distinction is helpful in double-checking our decisions. We quote Richard Gula here –

“Ought” expresses the objective pole of morality. This imperative is what ethical reflection
tries to uncover. Such reflections yield statements of right and wrong, such as “euthanasia is
Foundations of Moral Values - 26

wrong” and “keeping promises is right.” “Can” expresses the subjective pole of a person’s
capacity to choose right or wrong. This is the area that pastoral guidance needs to respect. ix

According to this distinction, the “ought” refers to the way life ought to be lived. Objective morality is
the world of value that we must confront in making moral decisions. The “can”, on the other hand,
refers to the “art of the possible.”

The subjective pole of morality has to do with the behavior that flows from one’s capacity
of knowledge, freedom, and emotion to appreciate moral values, to commit oneself to them,
and to choose them freely. Pastoral guidance is concerned with the ability of a person to
fulfill the objective moral order. In other words, it seeks the best possible expres sion of
basic human goods that this person can make at this time to satisfy what love demands.
“Love one another as I have loved you” is a norm for life and so must be followed
constantly. But there is a limit to what can be done by each person at each time in order to
live truthfully, compassionately, and respectfully of self and others. To refuse to accept this
is to demand perfect love from imperfect creatures. To face the reality of human sinful ness
and to accept our limited ability to love is not to dissolve the gospel demand but to
recognize that we are still in need of conversion. We are still on the way to the full
flowering of love.x
i
Richard M. Gula, SS, Moral Discernment. New York, Paulist Press, 1997, 1-2
ii
Michael J. Sandel, Justice, What is the Right Thing to Do? New York, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2009, 46.
The concept of the “Golden Mean” will be discussed more thoroughly in the section on Aristotle’s ethics of
iii

virtue.
iv
The purpose (and thus the main body) of this textbook is to discuss the different ethical theories/principles
in more detail. At this point then, it will suffice to treat this subject briefly and summarily.
v
Karl H. Peschke, SVD, Christian Ethics: Moral Theology in the Light of Vatican II, Vol. 1: General Moral
Theology. Manila, Divine Word Publications, 1996: 64.
vi
“The Common Good,” Markulla Center for Applied Ethics.
vii
“Ethics and Virtue,” Markulla Center for Applied Ethics.
viii
“Rights,” Markulla Center for Applied Ethics.
ix
Richard M. Gula, SS, Moral Discernment, 107.
x
Ibid., 108.