Republic of the Philippines

PARTIDO STATE UNIVERSITY

Camarines Sur

MODULE 4
REASON AND IMPARTIALITY, MORAL COURAGE AND MORAL IMAGINATION

Name of Student: Week Number: Week 9-10_______

Course Code: ______GE8___________________ Name of Faculty: Joseph P. Valencia
Course Title: Ethics_______________________

I. Objectives
At the end of the discussion, students are expected to:
a. Know the immediate responses based on the reasons and based on the feelings.
b. Improve the ability to discern on various possibilities and take ownership of such
decision.
c. Appreciate the contributions of psychology for human flourishing.

II. Lesson

Reasoning

Why do we suppose that a certain way of acting is

right and its opposite wrong? The study of ethics is interested
in questions like these: Why do we decide to consider this way
of acting as acceptable while that way of acting, its opposite,
is unacceptable? To put it in another way, what reasons do we
give to decide or to judge that a certain way of acting is either
right or wrong?

A person's fear of punishment or desire for reward can

provide him a reason for acting in a certain way. It is common
to hear someone say: "I did not cheat on the exam because I was afraid that I might get caught," or "I
looked after my father in the hospital because I wanted to get a higher allowance. In a certain sense,
fear of punishment and desire for reward can be spoken of as giving someone a "reason" for acting in
a certain way. But the question then would be: Is this reason good enough? That is to say, this way of
thinking seems to be a shallow way of understanding reason because it does not show any true
understanding of why cheating on an exam is wrong or why looking after a member of my family is in
itself a good thing. The promise of rewards and the fear of punishments can certainly motivate us to
act, but are not in themselves a determinant of the rightness or wrongness of a certain way of acting
or of the good or the bad in a particular pursuit. Is it possible to find better reasons for finding a certain
way of acting either acceptable or unacceptable?

I am in a situation wherein I could obtain a higher grade for myself by cheating. I make the
decision not to do so. Or I know that my friend was in a position to get a better grade for herself by
cheating. She refuses to do so; I then make the judgment of praising her for this. In making this kind
of moral decision or moral judgment, the question can be asked: Why?

Asking the question "why" might bring us to no more than a superficial discussion of rewards
and punishments, as seen above, but it could also bring us to another level of thinking. Perhaps one
can rise above the particulars of a specific situation, going beyond whatever motivation or incentive
is present in this instance of cheating (or not doing so). In other words, our thinking may take on a
 Republic of the Philippines
PARTIDO STATE UNIVERSITY
Camarines Sur

level of abstraction, that is, detaching itself from the particular situation and arriving at a statement
like, "Cheating is wrong," by recognizing proper reasons for not acting in this way. Beyond rewards
and punishments, it is possible for our moral valuation-our decisions and judgments-to be based on a
principle. Thus, one may conclude that cheating is wrong based on a sense of fair play or a respect for
the importance and validity of testing. From this, we can define principles as rationally established
grounds by which one justifies and maintains her moral decisions and judgments.

But why do we maintain one particular principle

rather than another? Why should I maintain that I should
care for fair play and that cheating is, therefore, wrong?
Returning to the case of fraternity hazing where we
started this chapter, why is it wrong to cause another
person physical injury or to take another's life? We can
maintain principles, but we can also ask what good
reasons for doing so. Such reasons may differ. So, for
example, what makes the death of Crist such a tragedy?
One person may say that life is sacred and God-given. Another person may declare that human life
has a priceless dignity. Still another may put forward the idea that taking another's life does not
contribute to human happiness but to human misery instead. How exactly do we arrive at any of these
claims? This is where we turn to theory. A moral theory is a systematic attempt to establish the validity
of maintaining certain moral principles. Insofar as a theory is a system of thought or of ideas, it can
also be referred to as a framework. We can use this term, "framework," as a theory of interconnected
ideas, and at the same time, a structure through which we can evaluate our reasons for valuing a
certain decision or judgment.

There are different frameworks that can make us reflect on the principles that we maintain
and thus, the decisions and judgments we make. By studying these, we can reconsider, clarify, modify,
and ultimately strengthen our principles, thereby informing better both our moral judgments and
moral decisions.

Reason and Impartiality

What can we learn from all this about the nature of morality? As a start, we may note two
main points: first, that moral judgments must be by good reasons; and second, that morality requires
the impartial consideration of each individual's interests.

Moral Reasoning

The cases of Baby Theresa, Jodie and Mary, and like many others are liable to arouse strong.
Such feelings are often a sign of moral seriousness and so may be admired. But they can also be an
impediment to discovering the truth: When we feel strongly about an issue, it is tempting to assume
that we just know what the truth must be, without even having to consider the arguments on the
other side. Unfortunately, however, we cannot rely on our feelings, no matter how powerful they may
be. Our feelings may be irrational: they may be nothing but the products of prejudice, selfishness, or
cultural conditioning. (At one time, for example, people's feelings told them that members of other
races were inferior and that slavery was God's own Moreover, different people's feelings often tell
them opposite things: the case of Tracy some people feel very strongly that her father should have
 Republic of the Philippines
PARTIDO STATE UNIVERSITY
Camarines Sur

been given a long prison term, whereas others feel equally strongly that he should never have been
prosecuted. But both these feelings cannot be correct.

Thus, if we want to discover the truth, we must try to let our feelings be guided as much as
possible by the arguments that can be given for the opposing views. Morality is, first and foremost, a
matter of consulting reason. The morally right thing to do in any circumstance, is whatever there are
the best reasons for doing are.

This is not a narrow point about a small range of moral views it is a general requirement of
logic that must be accepted by everyone regardless of their position on any particular moral issue. The
fundamental point may be stated simply. Suppose someone says that you ought to do thus-and-so (or
that doing thus-and-so would be wrong). You may legitimately ask why you should do it (or why it
would be wrong), and if no good reason can be given, you may reject the advice as arbitrary or
unfounded.

In this way, moral judgments are different from expressions of personal taste. If someone says
"I like coffee," he does not need to have a reason he is merely stating a fact about himself, and nothing
more. There is no such thing as "rationally defending one's like or dislike of coffee, and so there is no
arguing about it. So long as he is accurately reporting his tastes, what he says must be true. Moreover,
there is no implication that anyone else should feel the same way; if everyone else in the world hates
coffee, it doesn't matter. On the other hand, if someone says that something is morally wrong, he
does need reasons, and it his reasons are sound, other people must acknowledge their force. By the
same logic, if he has no good reason for what he says, he is just making noise and we need pay him no
attention.

Of course, not every reason that may be advanced is a good season. There are bad arguments
as well as good ones, and much of the skill of moral thinking consists in discerning the difference. But
how does one tell the difference? How are we to go about assessing arguments? The examples we
have considered illustrate some of the pertinent points.

The first thing is to get one's facts straight. Often this is not as easy as it sounds. One source
of difficulty is that the "tacts" are sometimes hard to ascertain-matters may be so complex and difficult
that not even the experts can agree. An

III. Activities
a. Suggested readings
b. Online Discusion/Debate
c. On line opinion posting
c. Reflective Journal
 Republic of the Philippines
PARTIDO STATE UNIVERSITY
Camarines Sur

IV. APPLICATION AND ASSESSMENT

A case study

Michael had several friends including Roger and Daniel. Roger has recently met and started dating a
wonderful lady named Phyllis. He is convinced this is a long-term relationship. Unknown to Roger,
Michael observed them at a restaurant several days ago and realized Phyllis is the wife of his other
friend Daniel. Michael is deciding whether to tell Roger that Phyllis is married when he receives a call
from Daniel. Daniel suspects his wife is having an affair and since they and Michael share many friends
and contacts, he asks if Michael has heard anything regarding an affair.

1. If you were Michael, what would you do?

2. Justify and explain briefly your reasons for your chosen action.

3. Do you think your decision for your chosen action is fair? Why or why not?

V. REFERENCES

Kant, Immanuel. Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Translated by James W. Ellinton.
Indianapolis: Hacket Publishing Co., 1993.
Kohlberg, Lawrence. Essays on Moral Development. Vol. 1 of the Philosophy of Moral Development:
Moral Stages and the idea of justice. San Francisco: harper and Row, 1981.
Licuanan, Patricia et al. A Moral recovery program: Building people-Building Nation. Edited by
Manuel Dy Jr., p 31-48. Washington D.C.: the Council for Reseach in Values and Philosophy,
1994.
Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism. 2nd edition. Edited with an introduction by George Sher.
Indianapolis: Hacket Publishing Co., 2001.
Palma-Angeles, Antonette.” Cultural Drivers of Corruption in Business and Governance.” In Business
Ethics in Asia: issues and Cases, edited by Oscar G. Bulaong Jr.,Ike Danita Dewi, and J. SEdfrey
Santiago, 20-36. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 2014.
Que, Nemesio S.,S.J”Notes on Moral DEliberatio”: Foundations of Moral Value, Ateneo de Manila
University. N.d.