Researcher: Tamayo

Writer: De Juan
TOPIC 3: THE FOUNDATIONS OF MORALITY

CHAPTER TWO: MORAL AGENTS

“The morality of one’s action can will be based on the morality of the agent acting in a
particular situation.”

➢ Moral Agent – a person who can think, act, and decide for himself/herself

✓ A moral agent is a person who has the ability to discern right from wrong
and to be held accountable for his or her own actions. Moral agents have
a moral responsibility not to cause unjustified harm.

✓ Traditionally, moral agency is assigned only to those who can be held

responsible for their actions. Children, and adults with certain mental
disabilities, may have little or no capacity to be moral agents. Adults with
full mental capacity relinquish their moral agency only in extreme
situations, like being held hostage.

✓ By expecting people to act as moral agents, we hold people accountable

for the harm they cause others.

✓ So, do corporations have moral agency? As artificial intelligence

develops, will robots have moral agency? And what about socially
intelligent non-human animals such as dolphins and elephants?

✓ Indeed, future philosophers and legal scholars will need to consider moral
agency as it applies to these situations and others.

➢ Morality – whether the decisions or actions exhibited by a person were good and
acceptable, or in the other hand, labelled as bad and unacceptable. It is also a determiner of
whether he or she is morally responsible or not.
✓ In the normative sense, “morality” refers to a code of conduct that would be
accepted by anyone who meets certain intellectual and volitional conditions,
almost always including the condition of being rational.
✓ That a person meets these conditions is typically expressed by saying that the
person counts as a moral agent. However, merely showing that a certain code
 would be accepted by any moral agent is not enough to show that the code is
the moral code.
✓ It might well be that all moral agents would also accept a code of prudence or
rationality, but this would not by itself show that prudence was part of morality.
So, something else must be added; for example, that the code can be
understood to involve a certain kind of impartiality, or that it can be understood
as having the function of making it possible for people to live together in
groups.
Dilemma

➢ Greek words “di” which means twice, and “lemma” which means assumptions or premise. It
is a form of inference that follows a pattern “either…or”

➢ Composed of a conjunction or two conditional hypothetical statements.

1. Major premise – horns of the dilemma
2. Minor premise – disjunction of the antecedent from the major premise in the hypothetical
statements.
3. Conclusion – disjunction of the consequent conditional hypothetical idea within the same
major premise.

➢ It is a prominent and efficient instrument of persuasion because of its rhetorical implication

(conclusion or inference) that obliges the readers to choose between two disadvantageous and
seemingly negative alternatives or options)
EXAMPLE: DO NOT INCLUDE IN THE PPT
(Your plan to set up your friend Carey with your acquaintance Emerson is finally coming together.
You’ve made them a dinner reservation, but suddenly realize that there's a problem: Carey is always
late. You really want this relationship to work— what if you told Carey dinner was at 6 instead of
6:30, so they arrived on time? Is it okay to lie? Sarah Stroud explores this classic ethical dilemma.)

But isn't it morally wrong to lie? The absolute position of lying, associated with German
philosopher Immanuel Kant, holds that lying is always immoral, regardless of the
circumstances. In other words, there's a moral rule which forbids lying, and that rule is
absolute. You might think, though that this stance overstates the moral importance of lying.

By contrast, utilitarian philosopher John Stuart Mill would say that lying is wrong only when
it leads to less happiness overall.

Now to be fair most lies do seem likely to create unhappiness. Someone who accepts lies
believes something which is false, and trying to conduct your life on the basis if false
information doesn't usually go well. (To reporter, give example about this especially about
the PangGULO Marcos, bunilog ang ulo ng mga Filipino sa pamamagitan ng historical
revisionism)
However, in some circumstances, perhaps including your situation, lying might produce
more happiness overall. In those cases, utilitarians say it's not morally wrong to lie. In fact, it
might even be your moral duty to do so.

But if absolutism seems to extreme, you might feel this stance is too lax. Perhaps the
utilitarian position understates the moral importance of lying. Most people generally feel
some regret about lying, even they believe it's the right thing to do. This suggests there's
something inherently objectionable about lying- even when it leads to more happiness.

Followers of Kant would say treating others with respect is the heart of moral conduct, while
followers of Mill would say nothing is more important than happiness. ( To reporters, call
someone randomly and ask if what is his/her stand, a Kant follower or a Mill follower?)

But other Philosophers believe that such conflicts can only be resolved on a case-by-case
basis, depending on various details and on the individuals involved.

Example situation (own example in relation to the topic) ➢ Charlotte is a freshman student,
taking up a Civil Engineering course. At first, she efficiently attended her classes while having a
side hustle in order to support her financial needs for her chosen course. However, when she
was supposed to attend her PE class, she considered it an “unnecessary subject”, and ended up
taking it for granted and neglecting his duties as a learner. She failed to attend the majority of
the sessions and submit required outputs and activities. At the end of the semester, her
professor consulted her about having a grade of 5.00, a failing grade. The dilemma began when
she realized that if she failed this class, she would lose her scholarship and face a greater
financial burden. On the other hand, if she is passed by her professor, it will cause unfairness to
her classmates and unequal treatment of academic accountability and excellence. What would
your decision and action be if you were her professor?

➢ Moral or Ethical Dilemma – “choosing one moral will result in violating another; or, doing
one thing could bring positive results but is morally wrong (Literary Terms, 2015).”

Moral Standard

➢ In order to decide and act rationally and morally, the moral agent must have a good
standard and perception of morality.

➢ Perceptions about the Moral Standard

1. If the decision or action will benefit and positively affect the majority of people, it will
be considered morally acceptable. Hence, the basis of morality is the positive (pleasure)
or negative effects (pain) of an action. Moreover, the action is considered morally
acceptable because it will lead to the goodness of other people, not because it is truly
accepted by the majority. “The end justifies the means.” – The justifications or
rationales for one's actions will be used to validate moral standards.
2. The basis of moral standards is the moral agent’s culture, values, and self interest.
Therefore, it is vital that a person possess the ability to distinguish between right and
wrong and be accountable for his/her own actions. However, accountability varies
depending on the moral formation, cultural beliefs, and practices that a person has.
Those cultural and moral behaviors will influence one’s decision while also considering
the practicality and morality of the act. Nonetheless, practicality and morality lack
harmony in some situations and conditions.
The Elements of Moral Philosophy by James Rachels and Stuart Rachels: Theresa “Baby
Theresa” Ann Campo Pearson’s Case

➢ Baby Theresa was born in Florida in 1992 with a chronic birth defect known as anencephaly,
wherein “babies without brains” are born without the upper part of the brain and skull, which is
the cerebrum and cerebellum. They are destined to experience demise after a few days of being
born and alive Given the circumstances, baby Theresa's parents have decided and volunteered
to donate her healthy organs such as kidneys, liver, heart, lungs, and eyes in order to save other
children who could benefit from those parts. However, Florida law forbids the removal of organs
until the donor is dead. Nine days later, baby Theresa died, but unfortunately, it was too late for
the other children – her organs had deteriorated too much, to the point that they were not
suitable for donation or transplant.

➢ Baby Theresa’s case was widely assessed and debated from various viewpoints.
1. “Should she have been killed so that her organs could have been used to save other
children?”
2. “Is the parents’ decision, morally justifiable and acceptable?”
3. “Practically speaking, considering baby Theresa’s pitiable state, family’s financial
burden, and supposition that she has other siblings, and selling the organs would at
least be a way and help for baby Theresa’s family to overcome financial distress. Will the
decision of the parents to donate or sell the organs not be considered horrendous?”

➢ The case acquired different points of view regarding the consideration of the morality and
practicality of an action. However, in order to come up with a rational moral decision, one’s
view will be influenced by and must be in accordance with his/her culture and own moral
behavior. Now, this will lead us to inquire about…
“How is culture related to moral behavior?”
“How does a culture shape moral behavior?”
“Should culture be the ultimate determinant of values?