The 7-Step

Moral
Reasoning
Model
 1. Gather the facts.
Is there a moral dilemma?
Not every choice we make needs
to be deliberated upon as a moral
dilemma. Choosing what clothes to
wear today, what food to eat for lunch
– while involving some tension, are not
what moral dilemma is all about.
 2. Determine the Ethical issues.
Trigger Event: Identifying and
setting up the Ethical Problem
“The issue…”
Every ethical problem has
more than one component and
that not every component involves
an ethical decision.
 2. Determine the Ethical issues.
For instance, we should be able to
separate a client's right to advertise from
a possible ethical problem involving the
way the product is to be advertised. And
the issue should be stated clearly. The
question is not whether the client should
advertise, but whether the client should
advertise in a particular manner that
might be ethically problematic.
 3. Choose principles which have
a bearing on the case.
Who are the stakeholders? It is
important to identify the stakeholders who
will be affected by the ethical decision to
be made. This is also the first point at
which ethical theories might be applied
since the idea of moral stakeholders can
be tied both to consequential and non-
consequential theories.
 3. Choose principles which have
a bearing on the case.
For example, from a utilitarian
perspective, 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.
 3. Choose principles which have
a bearing on the case.
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 reporter, you are obligated by the duty of
fidelity to honor your implied contract with
the public to give them the news you want
them to read, that reading public must be
listed as a stakeholder in your decision.
 4. List the alternatives.
What are the available options? It is
important to list down at least three. As
Aristotle remarks, there are at least two,
and these two often represent the extremes.
Nothing is ever either black or white;
sometimes one is forced to think in terms of
a compromise, even if that compromise
doesn’t exactly conform to your personal
notion of what is the right thing to do.
 5. Compare alternatives with
principles.
In considering and evaluating the
options, it will help to be guided by the
following approaches. This is the point
at which the various sources of Christian
morality, ethical theories and principles
come into play. One will discover here
that there is much conflict among these.
There are no easy solutions.
 5. Compare alternatives with
principles.
While one person may use utilitarianism
to support his decision (for instance, to run the
story in the interest of the many), another may
decide to cite Kant’s proscription against using
a person as a means to an end (for instance,
for not running a story because one must
respect the privacy of a person). What is
important here is to use only those justifications
that apply directly to one’s decision.
 6. Assess the consequences.
What benefits and what harms
will each option produce, and
which alternative will lead to the
best overall consequence?
Double-Checking one’s
decision. It is important to take a
second look at the decision to be
made.
Double-checking one’s decision to be done…

First, we must see to it that

our arguments 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.
Double-checking one’s decision to be done…
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,
argument on the other
hand, has true premises and valid reasoning. An
unsound argument employs invalid reasoning or
has at least one false premise.
Double-checking one’s decision to be done…
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
decision? Will I be able to defend this
decision to that claimant who has lost
the most or been harmed the most?
Double-checking one’s decision to be done…
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.
 7. Make a decision.
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 hap- pens, it is
possible to end up with a decision that one
can then rationalize but not really justify.
 7. Make a decision.
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 hap- pens, it is
possible to end up with a decision that one
can then rationalize but not really justify.