Lesson 2

Reasons and Impartiality as

Minimum Requirement for
Morality
1:00 PM
2/11/2022
 OBJECTIVES
OBJEC
 DEFI TIVES
NE MO
 REAS RALITY
ONS AN
MORALITY IMPART D
IA
MINIM LITY AS
UM
REQUIR
 7 ST EMENT
EPS MO
REASONS REASON RA L
 SCO ING MO
T T B. R A DEL
APPLICA E, Ph.D
TION O
7 STEPS F THE
IMPARTIALITY MODEL

1:00 PM
2/11/2022
7 STEPS
 OBJECTIVES
MORALIT
MORALITY
Y
the principle concerning
REASONS
the distinction between
IMPARTIALITY
good and bad, right and
wrong.
1:00 PM
7 STEPS 2/11/2022
  our moral opinions
Ethical are based on our
Subjectivism feelings and nothing
more

 claim that there is

Emotivisim no objective moral
facts.
1:00 PM
2/11/2022
 OBJECTIVES
REASONS
MORALITY
 basis or motive for an action,
REASONS
decision, or conviction.
 Establishing and verifying
IMPARTIALITY
facts.
 Foundation or stand.
7 STEPS . 1:00 PM
2/11/2022
FEELINGS REASONS
 OBJECTIVES
IMPARTIALITY
MORALITY
 Each individual’s interest and point of
view are equally important.
REASONS  Also called “evenhandedness” or “fair-
mindedness”
 Principle of justice wherein being
IMPARTIALITY
objective is a criteria.
 Equal and right considerations
1:00 PM
7 STEPS 2/11/2022
REASONS IMPARTIALITY
FEELINGS REASONS IMPARTIALITY

RIGHT DECISION MAKING

 7 STEPS MORAL REASONING MODEL
OBJECTIVES

 By Contemporary Author
MORALITY
Scott B. Rae, Ph. D
 Rae admits that this model
is not a formula that will
REASONS
generate the right answer
rather serves as a
IMPARTIALITY
GUIDELINE in
ascertaining the possible 1:00 PM
7 STEPS 2/11/2022
QUESTION

HOW DID RAE PRESENT

THESE 7 STEP MORAL
REASONING MODEL?

1:00 PM
2/11/2022
 7 STEPS MORAL REASONING MODEL

1. Gather the Facts

OBJECTIVES  What do we know?
 What do we need to know?
2. Determine Ethical Issues
 The moral issues should be correctly stated in terms of competing interests. It is these
conflicting interests that make for a moral dilemma. The issues must be presented in a P
MORALITY vs. Q format in order to reflect the interests that are colliding in a specific moral
dilemma.
3. Identify the Principles that Have a Bearing on the Case
 In any moral dilemma, there are sure moral values or principles that are vital to the rival
positions being taken. It is very significant to recognize these principles, and in some
case, to decide whether some principles are to be weighted more heavily than others.
REASONS
4. List the Alternatives
 This step involves coming up with various alternative courses of action as part of the
creative thinking included in resolving a moral dilemma. “Though there will be some
alternatives which you will rule out without much thought, in general, the more
alternatives listed, the better the chance that your list will include some high quality ones.
IMPARTIALITY

7 STEPS
 7 STEPS MORAL REASONING MODEL

5. Compare the Alternatives with the Principles

OBJECTIVES This step involves eliminating alternatives according to moral principles that have a
bearing on the case. The purpose of this comparison is to determine whether there is a
clear decision that can be made without further deliberation.

6. Weigh the Consequences

MORALITY If the principles do not produce a clear decision, “then a consideration of the
consequences of the remaining available alternatives is in order. Both positive and
negative consequences are to be considered. They should be informally weighted, since
some positive consequences are more detrimental than others” (Rae n.d.)
 
REASONS
7. Make a decision
Since deliberation ought not to go on forever, a decision must be made at some point. It
must be realized that one common element to moral dilemmas is that there are no easy
and painless solution to them.
IMPARTIALITY

7 STEPS
 7 STEPS MORAL REASONING MODEL
OBJECTIVES

MORALITY
Employing these 7 steps
moral reasoning model
presented by Rae, let us
REASONS
return to the stated case
earlier and clarify each
IMPARTIALITY
element in the model

7 STEPS
 7 STEPS MORAL REASONING MODEL
1. Gather the Facts. For Rae, the relevant facts in the case are:
• The patient is a young man, infected with HIV and an active homosexual.
OBJECTIVES • He suffered fairly severe abdominal wounds but is recovering well.
• Homosexuality is looked down upon in Hispanic communities.
• The patient has insisted that his physician maintain confidentiality about his HIV status.
• The patient is afraid of rejection by his father if this homosexuality is viewed in the
Hispanic community.
MORALITY • He was wounded by gunfire in gang violence. It is not clear but it is a reasonable
assumption that he is a gang member. As a result, he likely fears rejection and perhaps
retribution from his fellow gang members, especially if they discover that he is HIV
positive.
• He is uninsured and cannot afford home nursing care by a professional.
• Medicaid refuses to pay professional home nursing care.
REASONS • The patient’s sister is willing and able to provide the necessary nursing care for her
brother. She is accustomed to providing maternal-like care for her brothers and sisters.
• The patient has specifically requested that his sister not to be told of his HIV status. She
does not know that he is an active homosexual.
• The patient’s sister would be changing fairly sizable wound dressing for her brother and
IMPARTIALITY the chances are high that she would come into contact with his HIV infected blood. The
probability of her becoming infected with the virus from this contact is difficult to
predict.

7 STEPS
 7 STEPS MORAL REASONING MODEL

OBJECTIVES 2. Determine the Ethical issue(s).

• Confidentiality vs. the duty to warn the sister of risk of harm.

3. Identify the Principles that have a Bearing on the Case.

• The right of a patient to keep his medical information confidential.
MORALITY • The duty of the physician to warn interested parties other than the patient if
they are at risk of looming and considerable harm.

4. List the Alternatives.

• Warn the patient’s sister in general terms about taking suitable precautions for
REASONS caring these types of wounds.
• Request that the patient inform his sister of his condition.
5. Compare Alternatives with Principles.
•  Comparison of the alternatives stated and the priciples mentioned during this
step is necessary to assess what are the points to be considered.
IMPARTIALITY

7 STEPS
 7 STEPS MORAL REASONING MODEL

OBJECTIVES 6. Asses the Consequences

• The option of telling the sister (or insulting that the patient tell his sister
has the following likely consequences (Rae, n.d.) :
The sister would be properly warned about the risks of taking care of her brother,
and the risk of developing the illness would decrease.
MORALITY The brother’s HIV status would be revealed.
His trust for the physician will break, and he may refuse to see the physician.
 
• In the alternative of the physician refusing to disclose the information, the
following may be estimated as the likely consequences (Rae, n.d.):
REASONS  
The sister would not know about the risks she is taking, making her vulnerable to
contracting the infection.
The patient’s HIV status is a well-kept secret, as his homosexuality.
Trust between the physician and patient is maintained.
IMPARTIALITY  

7 STEPS
 7 STEPS MORAL REASONING MODEL

OBJECTIVES
• If the alternative of telling the sister to take general precautions is
adopted, the following are likely consequences (Rae, n.d.):
She may or may not use necessary caution when caring for her brother. She may
treat the precautions casually and unknowingly put herself at risk.
MORALITY The patient’s HIV status and homosexual orientation are kept secret, and a
confidentiality is honored, but it is likely that it will become known eventually.
Trust with the physician and patient is maintained. However, if the sister started
asking questions about the precautions, he may conclude that the physician has
prompted his sister to ask questions, leaving him feeling betrayed.
REASONS

IMPARTIALITY

7 STEPS
 7 STEPS MORAL REASONING MODEL

OBJECTIVES 7. Make a Decision.

Under this final phase, Rae has no final decision, but instead leaves us the following
further guiding questions:
• What would you decide in this case?
• Which principles are the weightiest? Are there others that you would
MORALITY conclude?
• Which alternatives are the most viable? Are there others that you would
suggest?
• Which consequences seem to you most severe? Are there others that you think
will occur?
REASONS

IMPARTIALITY

7 STEPS
QUESTION

WHY ARE THESE

REQUIREMENTS
IMPORTANT?

1:00 PM
2/11/2022
QUESTION

WHAT IS/ARE THE

ROLE(S) OF REASONS
AND IMPARTIALITY IN
ETHICS?

1:00 PM
2/11/2022
Lesson 2
Reasons and Impartiality as
Minimum Requirement for
Morality
Presented by:
Lei Q. Calimlim Ina Angela B. Maru 1:00 PM
2/11/2022
THANK YOU...

1:00 PM
2/11/2022