CHAPTER V

THE ACT
You make moral decisions daily. However, have you noticed that some decisions are
automatic responses and that you are not consciously deciding at all? For example, you help
an elderly cross the road. Without thinking, you ran to the opposite side of the road, away from
some perceive danger. Your desire to help and your fear of danger are gut reaction while
reasoned argument is just swirling beneath conscious awareness.

General Objectives:
1. Discern the two general forms of acts
2. Discuss the philosophical insight of feelings and its influence in decision making
3. Explain why reason and impartiality are requirements for morality
4. Determine a situation where there is a need for moral courage

Lesson I. Forms of Acts and Components of Moral Acts

Not all acts are to be taken as formal objects of ethics. Certain acts are of some value to
ethics, while others are expendable to ethical analysis. These become clearer if we consider the
two general forms of acts in the light of their moral value: the acts of man and the human acts.
Follow closely the discussions below and study whyhuman acts are considered to be the formal
object of ethics.

WHAT TO EXPECT

1. Differentiate the two general forms of acts

2. State the components of moral acts

Lesson Outline
 Acts of Man
Involuntary Natural Acts
Acts of Man are of two types: the first type is called involuntary natural acts. These
include the involuntary intuitive or reflex acts exhibited by man, such as the blinking of the eye,
the beating of the heart, sneezing, yawning, breathing, scratching, and others. When eating, are
you always aware of the way you chew or swallow your food? Probably not, unless you just had
dental surgery, or are suffering from tonsillitis (inflammation of the tonsil). or gingivitis
(inflammation of the gums). Try doing the following and confirm for yourself if they are indeed
involuntary:

1. Stop blinking for Five to ten minutes.

2. Stop breathing for live to ten minutes.
3. Stop your heart from beating.
4. Stop your stomach from digesting the food you have taken during breakfast.
Now, after performing the suggested exercises above, answer the following questions: Can
you choose not to b1in7cfor an entire day? Can you stop breathing, even for one hour? Can you
stop your heart from beating? Can you tell your stomach to stop digesting the food you have
eaten? If you can, you are surely not of this world. If you cannot, then, be rest assured that you
are normal just like everybody else because the acts you tried to stop are unstoppable and
uncontrollable. They are involuntary and natural acts.

Voluntary Natural Acts

The second type of non-moral acts is called voluntary natural acts. They include
voluntary and natural, but not necessarily reflexive acts, such as sleeping, eating, drinking, etc.
These types are actions we usually perform as part of our daily, socially learned activities, such
as brushing our teeth, combing our hair, cutting our nails, taking a bath, etc. The second type of
non-moral acts is different from the first type because it involves a certain degree of freedom or
voluntariness, so to speak. One may decide, for instance, when to sleep, or whether to sleep or
not, whether or not to brush one’s teeth, but one cannot decide when to start or stop his heart
from beating. However, these actions are similarly categorized under acts of man because they
are neither moral nor immoral. We cannot, for instance, judge our classmate to be moral or
immoral just because his heart is heating, or because he did not take his breakfast before going
to school. Hence, because involuntary natural acts and voluntary natural acts are neither moral
nor immoral, they do not possess any moral values. Non-moral acts can hardly be the formal
object of ethics. But we should take note that the voluntary natural act, like sleeping, could
become moral acts if they are performed beyond their natural purposes. Sleeping at work, for
example, is no longer perceived as simply a natural act, but an unethical and an unacceptable
act.

Human Acts
The second general form of act is called human acts. Human acts include actions that
are conscious, deliberate, intentional, voluntary and are within the preview of human value
judgment. Human acts are either moral or immoral. These actions are products of man’s
rationality and freedom of choice like telling the truth, helping others in distress and caring for
the sick. Since moral acts contain the elements that allow for moral judgment and setting of
moral responsibility. These acts are then said to be the formal object of ethics.

Classification of Human Acts

Acts are judged as to their moral worth based on conformity to standards or norms of
morality. Human acts are classified into the following:
Moral or ethical acts. These are human acts that observe or conform to a standard or norm of
morality. Some examples of moral or ethical actions include helping others in need. taking
examinations honestly, returning excess for change received, giving party to your friends, and
others.
Immoral or unethical acts. These are human acts that violate or deviate from a standard of
morality. Immoral/unethical actions may include, refusing to help others in distress, cheating in
an examination, speaking ill of others, and others

Amoral or Neutral Acts

For purposes of clarity, let us include amoral or neutral actions in the discussion. Amoral
or neutral actions do not apply to human acts because human acts can either be moral or
immoral but not morally neutral. Instead, the classification applies to non-moral acts (acts of
man). Recall that these acts are neither good nor bad in themselves. However, depending on
the circumstances surrounding a neutral act, it may become a moral/ethical or immoral/unethical
act. As we pointed out earlier, neutral acts like, for instance, sleeping becomes an
immoral/unethical act if it is done during office work schedule (e. g., a teacher sleeping in her
class, a security guard sleeping in his night duty, and others.)
Components of Moral Act
Depending on the ethical theory applied, a moral or human act may be ethical/moral or
unethical/ immoral if one or two of its elements either conform to or violate a moral principle of
the theory. Differences in elements emphasized mark the difference between and among major
theories of ethics.
These elements upon which to focus assessment of whether moral or human acts
conform to or violate a particular norm are enumerated below.
1. The intention or motive of the act. For instance, studying the lesson is intended to
pass an exam. or training for a basketball match is intended to win the
championship title.
2. The means of the act. This is the act or object employed to carry out the intent of
the act. The act of studying hard is a means to pass an exam, or the act of training
one’s self is a means to win the championship match. The means can also be a
person. For example, a person who pretends to help another to advance his selfish
interest is a person who treats another person as a means to his personal end.
3. The end of the act. The intent of the act is assumed to be always directed toward a
desired end or a perceived good, such as passing the exam or winning the
basketball championship tournament, wherein the means employed will help
achieve the end. For example, reading the lesson to pass an exam or training in
the hard court for the championship. The end of the act thus becomes the basis or
foundation for the intent of the act.
Distinction is made between the end and the consequence of the act. If the end refers to
the perceived good that can be derived from the performance of the act, the consequence is the
outcome or the actual conclusion or result of the moral act. This determines whether or not the
intent of the act was carried out or the end of the act was successfully realized.

Moral Act and Human Will

Moral acts or human acts stem from the human will that controls or influences the
internal and external actions of man. The will stirs a person to act, or hampers him from acting.
It colors the motives for his engaging or disengaging in a certain action. Living against all odds,
hoping in the midst of hopelessness, finding meaning in great loss, selfless sacrifice for others
these are just a few cases that demonstrate the power of the will to motivate the human soul for
goodness, hope and determination, it is this part of the soul that affects the' freedom and
reasoning of the individual. The will is the agency of choice. The will may prompt reason to
overpower passion or on the other extreme, arouse passion and allow it to overrun reason. As
such, the will is a potential force for both good and evil. The strength or weakness of the will
determines the strength or weakness of a person's character. If action follows being,
ageresequitoresse, and if the will affects action, the will must be brought closer to reason and to
the proper sense of morality and goodness.
The human will is what ethics and religious and values education aim to tame through
the instruction of the moral sense which is borne out of human experience. It is morality which
directs the will to its proper choice.
 Some ethicists believe that ethics is also a matter of emotion. They hold that moral
judgments at their bestshould also be emotional. Feelings are seen as also necessary in ethical
judgment as they are even deemedby some as instinctive a trained response to moral
dilemmas.Some hold that reason and emotion are not really opposites. Both abstract inference
and emotionalintuitions or instincts are seen as having relative roles ethical thinking. For one
thing, feelings or emotionsare said to be judgments about the accomplishment of one's goals.
Emotions, it is thus concluded, can berational being based at least sometimes on good
judgments about how well a circumstance or agentaccomplishes appropriate objectives.
Feelings are also visceral or instinctual by providing motivations toact morally.

WHAT TO EXPECT

1. Explain the role of feelings in decision making

2. State the different philosophical insights of feelings

Lesson Outline

Philosophical Insight on Feelings

An ancient to contemporary philosophers discussed the role and importance of decision-
making.

Hume and the Philosophy of the Mind

Philosopher, historian, economist, and essayist David Hume (1711-1776) famously
placed himself in opposition to most moral philosophers, ancient and modern; who argued to
regulate actions using reason has dominion over feelings or emotions.

Difference between Responses Based on Reason and on Feelings

On the opposite side of discussion about the role of feelings in making moral decisions
are those who argued on the use of reasons over feelings. Philosopher and Professor Dr.
James Rachels asserted that in moral reasoning, you could not rely on your feelings no matter
how powerful these feelings may be. Feelings can be irrational and merely a product of your
prejudice, selfishness, or cultural conditioning. The morally right thing to do is one that is
supported by rational arguments.

An argument is reasonable if:

(a) The facts are correct
(b) The moral principles are correctly applied
(c) Each individual’s well-being is treated equally important

What is the role of Feelings in Decision-Making

Reason plays a role in making a moral decision. Philosophers encourage the use of
reason in making moral decisions. However, it should be noted too that our moral compasses
are also powerfully influenced by feelings. Hume claimed that in any given situation a person
would act based on emotions rather than reason (Bucciarelli, et. al., 2008).
On several instances, reasoning in moral decisions is preceded by an initial intuition or
gut-feel (Haidt, 2012). For instance, in choosing between studying and partying before an exam
you already feel some negative emotions (guilt, worry) just thinking about going out rather than
studying. 20th century philosopher Alfred Jules Ayer described two elements in moral judgment:
The Emotive and the Prescriptive elements (2012)
 Emotive Element – in moral decision might express positive feelings towards a particular
act. Example, “Kindness is good”.
 Prescriptive Element – comes in saying “Be kind to others”. It is an instruction or
prescription of a particular behavior.

Why Feelings can be Obstacle to making the right Decision

There are three central features as to why emotions can be obstacles in making the right
decisions:
1. It is non-deliberate nature
2. It is partial nature (Be’enZeev, 1997)
3. It is capricious (Pizarro, 2000)

The Non-Deliberate Nature of Feelings

Deliberate means the act was intentional, planned with conscious effort. Non-deliberate
is the contrary term that denotes spontaneous actions. It is doing something without thinking
through. For instance, you run to your bed the moment your turn off the light because you are
afraid. Why did the darkness scare you? You never thought about it, you just run. Not
surprisingly, you will that a common excuse for doing a grossly undesirable act was “being
overcome by emotions” in that customary restrained failed (“I couldn’t help myself”; “I totally
blanked out”; “I felt overwhelmed”; “I don’t know, I just felt like doing it”). Under this
characterization, emotions are no different from mindless automatic reflex.

Philosopher Aaron Be’ezZeev summarized the nondeliberate nature of feelings as

follows:
1. Responsibility entails free choice; if we are not free to behave in a certain manner, then
we are not responsible for this behavior.
2. Free choice entails an intellectual deliberation in which alternatives are considered and
the best one is chosen. Without such consideration, we clearly cannot understand the
possible alternatives and are not responsible for preferring one of them.
3. Since intellectual deliberation is absent from emotions, we cannot be responsible for our
emotions

The Partial Nature of Feelings

Emotions notoriously play favorites. It operates on a principle called “the law of concern”
(Fridja,1988) where emotions give only focused on matters of personal interest. However,
emotions are quiet when it is of no personal concern. Take for example a catastrophic event like
an earthquake. The sorrow that your feel for earthquake victims from other countries is nowhere
nears the sorrow that you feel if your family were the victims.
1. Reason alone cannot be motivate the will, but rather is the “slave of the passions”.
2. Moral distinctions are not derived from the reason.
3. Moral distinctions are derived from the moral sentiments: feelings of approval (esteem,
praise) and disapproval (blame) felt by spectators who contemplate a character trait or
action.
4. While some virtues and vices are natural, other (including justice) are artificial.
Hume maintained that, although reason is needed to discover the facts of any concrete
situation, reason alone is insufficient to yield a judgment that something is virtuous or vicious
(Hume, 2003, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2016). He sided with the moral sense
theorist that a person gains awareness of moral good and evil by experiencing the pleasure of
approval and the uneasiness of disapproval.
 According to Hume’s “Theory of the Mind”, humans have what he called passions (which
he used to describe emotions or feelings). He further classified passion as direct and indirect.
The direct passion are caused directly by the sensation of pain or pleasure; the passion that
arises immediately from good or evil, from pain or pleasure.
Indirect passion is caused by the sensation of plain or pleasure derived from some other
idea or impression. For example, pride is a passion that emanated from the pleasure you get for
possessing something admirable (it could be intellect, physique, property, family, etc.). Pride,
therefore, is but a result of the person, the object of the passion, and quality of the object. Other
indirect passions are humility, ambitions, vanity, love, hatred, envy, pity, malice, generosity, etc.
(Blattner, 2017).

Scheler and the Philosophy of Feelings

Max Ferdinand Scheler was an important German Ethical Philosopher distinguished for
his contribution in phenomenology, ethics, and philosophical anthropology (Davis and
Steinbock, 2016). As a phenomenologist, Scheler sought to know what comprised the structures
of consciousness, including that of mental acts such as feeling, thinking, resolve, etc. – as well
as the inherent objects or correlates of theses mental acts such as values, concepts, and plans
(Frings, 2013).
Scheler presented four strata of feelings. He claimed that these strata or levels are
constant and it follows and exact order of importance. He called these levels of feelings as the
“stratification model of emotive life”:
 Sensual Feelings – involve bodily pleasure or pain.
 Vital Feelings – are the life functions such as health, sickness, energy, fatigue, etc.
 Psychic Feelings – are about aesthetics, justice and knowledge.
 Spiritual Feelings – deal with the Divine.
According to Scheler, of the four, it is the spiritual feeling alone that is intentional. This
means that the spiritual feelings are directed to a particular special object or a higher being that
he attributed to as the Divine. He believed that values of the holy are the highest of all values
because it has the ability to endure through time.

There are two aspects in the partial nature of emotions:

1. Decision based on feelings focus only on a narrow area
2. It reflects personal and self-interest perspective.
 Emotions influence our attention. Thus, it governs what attracts and hold attentions.
Emotions make us preoccupied with specific matters and we become oblivious to everything
else (Harvard Business Review, 2015). The feeling of “being in love” is an example. The narrow
area of focus is more evident when you and your girlfriend/boyfriend are not in good terms. You
cannot think of anything else but the end of your romance and you become overwhelmed with
sadness and despair. In this narrowly focused state, you have an extremely hard time taking
other aspects that lie outside the center of attention (in this case, the “breakup”) into
consideration.
The second partial nature of emotion is that it draws its perspective from personal
interest. It addresses subjective concerns and takes action primarily to satisfy such concerns
(O’Donohue& Kitchener, 1996). A highly partial perspective is interested only in the immediate
situation; no rational explanations from a broader perspective are relevant.

The Capricious Nature of Feelings

The third problem with emotions is that it rises up for arbitrary reasons. For example, you
did not give money to an old beggar asking for alms simply because she tugged at your shirt
and startled you. Aspects or situations that have nothing to do in moral situations could rile up
your emotion, and this emotion will certainly influence your subsequent moral judgment (Pizarro,
2000).

How Emotions Help in Making the Right Decision

Although several studies point out the negative effect of emotion in making decisions,
contemporary research on how emotions facilitate reasoning is also catching up. Several
studies suggest that emotions are the foundation of all our cognitive and behavioral processes;
emotional responses often guide a person in making beneficial choices without any conscious
reasoning.
In this line of thought, researchers studied two groups of research participants. Group 1
was made up of relatively healthy people with no history of head injury; Group 2 was composed
of those with decision-making defects resulting from head injury. Both groups were measured
while performing gambling tasks. The researcher observed that Group 1 began to choose that
were to their advantage even before they knew what strategy worked best. While the second
group continued to choose disadvantageously even though they already knew what the best
card strategy was. Moreover, in the same gambling tasks, the researchers observed that the
skin properties of the first group changed in response to thinking about risky choices, even
though the participants did not know the move was actually risky. The second group, on the
other hand, never had such reaction. The study suggested, “In normal individuals, non-
conscious biases guide behavior before conscious knowledge does (Bechara, et. al.,1997).
There are at least three ways of that feeling especially negative feelings, help in making
the right decisions:
1. It signals the need to adjust behavior.
2. It can help us learn from our mistakes.
3. Emotional responses can be reshaped as time pass by.
Psychologists have long acknowledged that emotions serve as a red flag. Emotions
signal that something is happening and that it needs attention (Arnold, 1960). Often times you
get the feeling that “something is wrong” when you make an incorrect judgment. This red flag
aspect in emotions helps in making better decisions. It had been observed too that physiological
processes are heightened when incorrect judgments were made, and those who spend more
time deliberating on his or her mistakes are more likely to correct his or her behavior (Bonner
and Newell, 2010; DE Neys&Franssens, 2009).
We are all familiar with feelings of regret, shame, guilt, disappointment, and sadness as
a result from acting contrary to what we believe as morally right. Studies, however, have shown
that negative feelings are integral to our ability to learn. The surge of negative emotions triggers
“counterfactual thinking” (Smallman and Roese, 2009).
Counterfactual Thinking – is a psychological concept about the human tendency to create
possible or alternative scenarios other than what had actually happened.
The idea that behavior can be changed is a hallmark in Psychology. What is important,
however, is the idea that emotional response can be deliberately altered. The psychological
state of “mindfulness” where you give active and open attention t personal thoughts and feelings
show that, with some effort, emotional reactions can be brought in accord with your beliefs and
goals.
Emotions are powerful and unavoidable. Upsurge of feelings is natural. However, it
should not control behavior nor should it prevent reason. What we do with our feelings is what
makes us ethical or unethical.
 Lesson III. REASON AND IMPARTIALITY AS REQUIREMENT FOR ETHICS

Reasonis the basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction. As a quality, it refers
to the capacity or logical, rational, and analytic thought; for consciously making sense of things,
establishing andverifying facts, applying common sense and logic, and justifying, and if
necessary, changing practices,institutions, and beliefs based on existing or new existing
information.t also spells the difference of moral judgments from mere expressions of personal
preference. In thecase of moral judgments, they require backing by reasons. Thus, reason
commends what it commends,regardless of our feelings, attitudes, opinions, and
desires.Impartialityinvolves the idea that each individual’s interests and point of view are equally
important. Itis a principle of justice holding that decisions ought to be based on objective criteria,
rather than on thebasis of bias, prejudice, or preferring the benefit to one person over another
for improper reasons.Impartiality in morality requires that we give equal and/or adequate
consideration to the interests of allconcerned parties. The principle of impartiality assumes that
every person, generally speaking, isequally important; that is, no one is seen intrinsically more
significant than anyone else

WHAT TO EXPECT

1. Define reason and impartiality

2. Explain the roles of reason and impartiality to morality
3. Solve a moral dilemma using the 7 Step moral reasoning model

Lesson Outline

Is Reason a Requirement for Morality?

A relevant definition of reason to our topic is “the power of mind to think, understand,
and form judgments by a process of logic” (Merriam-Webster, 2017). However, one of the most
influential philosophers in the history of western philosophy, Immanuel Kant, argued that reason
alone is the basis for morality, and once the person understood this basic requirement for
morality, he or she would see that acting morally is the same as acting rationally (Beck, 1960).
In Kant’s view, the definition of morality alone shows that a person must decide what to do. You,
as a person, are able to think and reflect on different actions and then choose what actions to
take. That a moral decision means mere desires did not force you to act in a particular manner.
You acted by the power of your will.

Is Impartiality a Requirement for Morality?

Before discussing how impartiality is related to morality, it is important to understand
what is impartiality is. It is a broad concept, but it is also identified as a core value I professional
codes of ethics.
Impartiality – is commonly understood as a principle of justice. It denotes that the
decision should be “based on objective criteria rather than on the basis of bias, prejudice, or
preferring to benefit one person over another for improper reasons” (Jollimore, 2011);
impartiality stresses everyone ought to be given equal importance and not favor one class
(people, animals, or things) in a capricious way.

How impartiality is requirement for morality? According to philosopher and professor, Dr.
James Rachels, for your decision to be moral, you should think how your answer will affect the
people surrounds you, and how it will affect you as a person. An impartial choice involves
basing your decision on how all the person in the situation will be affected and not to advantage
of a particular party that you favor.

The 7-Step Moral Reasoning Model

A key distinguishing feature of a moral dilemma is that it typically arises when individuals
or groups might be harmed, disrespected, or unfairly disadvantaged (Beall, 2017). More ethical
decisions lie in a gray area. Often times you are faced with a situation where there are no clear-
cut or obvious choices; the situation cannot be determined by simple quantitative analysis of
data. Ethics decision-making requires interpretation of the situation, application of your values
and estimating the consequences of your action.
Making ethical choices requires the ability to make distinctions between competing
options. Here are the seven steps to help you make a better decision.
The 7-Step Model for Ethical Decision Making
(Adapted from 2nd Gen. CHED-GET, XU Training)
1. Gather the facts.
2. Identify the stakeholders
3. Articulate the dilemma
4. List the alternatives
5. Compare the alternatives with the principles
6. Weigh the consequences
7. Make a decision
Gather the Facts
Do not jump into conclusion. Ask questions (who, what, where, when, how, and why).
There may be instances when facts are hard to find or are not available because of the
uncertainty that surrounds ethical issues. Nevertheless, gather as many facts as you can.
Clarify what assumptions you are making.

Identify the Stakeholders

Identify all persons involved and will be affected in an ethical situation. Who are the
primary stakeholders? Who are the secondary stakeholders? Why are they stakeholders in the
issue? Get the proper perspective. Try to see the situation through the eyes of the people
affected.

Articulate the Dilemmas

Once you have gathered the facts and identified the stakeholders, it is important that you
express the ethical dilemma. What are the competing values? The purpose of articulating the
dilemma is to make sure that you understand the situation and the moral conflict you are facing.
Awareness and comprehension are important in making the right decision, especially when
there are lives that will be affected.
List the Alternatives
Think creatively about potential actions, as there may be choices you neglected. This will
help ensure that you have not been pushed back into a corner.
Compare the Alternatives with the Principles
In decision-making, specify the relevant values that you want o uphold in making your
decisions. Then compare whether your alternative actions are in line with your values.
Identifying the value and comparing your action with these value are important because it will
help to identify if your alternative action is illegal or unethical, thus making this action easy to
discard.
Weigh the Consequences
 When considering the effects of your action, filter your choices to determine if your
options will violate ethical values. Determine all the stakeholders will be affected by your
decision.
Make a Decision
Remember, deliberation cannot go on forever. You must avoid “paralysis by analysis” or
the state of over-analyzing (or over thinking) a situation so that a decision or action is never
taken, in effect paralyzing the outcome.
 Lesson IV. MORAL COURAGE

Moral courage is defined as brave behavior, accompanied by anger and indignation,

intending to enforce societal and ethical norms without considering one’s own social costs.
Social costs (i.e., negative social consequences) distinguish moral courage from other prosocial
behaviors like helping behavior

WHAT TO EXPECT

1. Explain moral courage

2. Cite a situation where your moral courage was challenged

Lesson Outline

Moral courage is the courage to put your moral principles into action even though you
may be in doubt, are afraid, or face adverse consequence. Moral courage involves careful
deliberation and mastery of the self. Moral courage is essential not for only a virtuous life, but
also a happy one because integrity is essential to self-esteem.
However, according to philosopher Mark Johnson, acting morally often requires more
than just strength and character (Drumwright& Murphy, 2004). Johnson added it is important to
have “an ability to imaginatively discern various possibilities for acting within a given situation to
envision the potential help and harm that are likely to result from a given action”. This ability
called moral imagination.
Moral imagination is “ability in a particular circumstance to discover and evaluate
possibilities not merely framed by a set of rules or rule-governed concerns”.

What is Will?
Generally, “will” is the mental capacity to act decisively on one’s desire. It is the faculty of
the mind initiates action after coming to a resolution following careful deliberation (Joachim,
1952). Within Ethics “will” is an important topic along with reason because of its role in enabling
a person to act deliberately.
On the concept of the “will” in Classical Philosophy, Aristotle said: “The soul in living
creatures is distinguished by two functions, the judging capacity which is a function of the
intellect and of sensation combined, and the capacity for exciting movement in space.” (Hett,
1964)

Why is the “will” as important as reason?

Aristotle believed that “will” is the product of intellect and sensation: and that “will” gave
the person the capacity for “exciting movement in space”.

Developing the “will”

Aristotle discussed the difference between what people decide to do and what they
actually do. In his Philosophy, using the intellect to decide is just one part of the moral decision.
The resolve to put the decision into action is the role of the “will”. He said since vice and virtues
are up to us, “we become just by the practice of just actions; self-control by exercising self-
control; and courageous practicing acts of courage.
Self-mastery therefore is the product of the “will” that is achieved by actually putting
rational, moral choices into action.
 Chapter Summary
 Not all acts are to be taken as formal objects of ethics. Certain acts are of some value to
ethics, while others are expendable to ethical analysis.
 The two general forms of acts are Acts of man and human acts.
 Human acts include actions that are conscious, deliberate, intentional, voluntary and are
within the preview of human value judgment. Human acts are either moral or immoral.
 Amoral or neutral actions do not apply to human acts because human acts can either be
moral or immoral but not morally neutral.
 The three components of moral acts are; the intention or motive of the act; the means of
the act, and the end of the acts.
 Reason plays a role in making a moral decision but Hume claimed that in any given
situation a person would act based on emotions rather than reason
 Feelings can be obstacle in decision making because of its non-deliberate nature, partial
nature and it is capricious.
 On the other hand, negative feelings also help in making right decision because it
signals the need to adjust behavior, it can help us learn from our mistakes and emotional
responses can be reshaped as time pass by.
 Reasonis the basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction.
 Impartiality – is commonly understood as a principle of justice. It denotes that the
decision should be “based on objective criteria rather than on the basis of bias,
prejudice, or preferring to benefit one person over another for improper reasons”
 The 7-Step model for ethical decision making includes: gathering the facts; identifying
the stakeholders; articulating the dilemma; listing the alternatives; comparing the
alternatives with the principles, weighing the consequences and making a decision.
 Moral courage is defined as brave behavior, accompanied by anger and indignation,
intending to enforce societal and ethical norms without considering one’s own social
costs.