CHAPTER III: HUMAN ACT

Feeling as a Modifier of
Moral Decision Making
LESSON 3
Intended Learning Outcome:
• Explain the role of feelings in
moral decision making
Feelings in Decision-making
Feeling - is an emotional state or
reaction, experience of physical
sensation, like feeling of joy, feeling
of warmth, love, affection, tenderness,
etc.
Feelings in Decision-making
Feeling are instinctive and trained
response to moral dilemma. They can be
obstacles to making right decisions but
they can also help in making the right
decisions.
Advantages of Emotional Decision Making

• A totally emotional decision is very fast in

comparison to a rational decision. This is
reactive (and largely subconscious) and can be
useful when faced with immediate danger, or
in decisions of minimal significance.
Advantages of Emotional Decision Making

• Emotions may provide a way for coding and

compacting experience, enabling fast response
selection. This may point to why expert's "gut"
level decisions have high accuracy rates.
Advantages of Emotional Decision Making

• Decisions that start with logic may need

emotions to enable the final selection,
particularly when confronted with near equal
options.
Advantages of Emotional Decision Making

• Emotions often drive us in directions

conflicting with self-interest.
 Disadvantages of Emotional Decision
Making
• We make quick decisions without knowing why,
and then create rational reasons to justify a poor
emotional decision.
• Intensity of emotions can override rational
decision-making in cases where it is clearly needed.
 Disadvantages of Emotional Decision
Making
• Immediate and unrelated emotions can create mistakes by
distorting and creating bias in judgements. In some cases
this can lead to unexpected and reckless action.
• Projected emotions can lead to errors because people are
subject to systemic inaccuracy about how they will feel in
the future.
 Moral statements as expressions of feelings
According to some linguistic philosophers, called (emotivists)
the statement "stealing is wrong" is not a statement of fact, it
is an expression of a desire or emotion. The rule or maxim
"Stealing is wrong" means "I desire that you do not steal." An
emotional statement is not verifiable like factual statement.
"Pedro stole my cat" is verifiable, can be established by
evidence. But "Pedro's act of stealing my cat is morally
wrong" which is equivalent to "I desire that Pedro should not
steal" is not verifiable.
 Moral statements as expressions of feelings
The following explains this ethical theory:
• Emotivism... is the view that moral judgments do not
function as statements of fact but rather as expressions of
the speaker's or writer's feelings. According to the
emotivist, when we say "You acted wrongly in stealing that
money," we are not expressing any fact beyond that stated
by "You stole that money." It is, however, as if we had
stated this fact with a special tone of abhorrence, for in
saying that something is wrong, we are expressing our
feelings of disapproval toward it.
 Moral statements as expressions of feelings
The following explains this ethical theory:
• Emotivism was expounded by A. J. Ayer in Language, Truth and
Logic (1936) and developed by Charles Stevenson in Ethics and
Language (1945).
• The emotivist thus goes further by saying that ethical statements
being emotional expressions are not verifiable.
• The emotivist thus goes further by saying that ethical statements
being emotional expressions are not verifiable.
 Moral statements as expressions of feelings
The following explains this ethical theory:
• Emotional expressions are not assertions of what is true or false.
• They are like expressions of taste.
• There is no dispute or there can be no dispute on matters of
taste.
• "De gustibus non disputandum est." One cannot argue with
one's taste, emotion.
 Moral statements as expressions of feelings
• It may be said that an analogy between legal and moral statement
may be made to show that moral statements may treated like a
factual statement.
• In criminal law, the allegation that "Juan's act of stealing is
wrong" may be established by evaluating the act in the light of the
elements of the crime of stealing under the law.
• For instance, the law provides that stealing is taking the property of
another without the latter's consent. So if there is an evidence that
Juan has taken a property, that the property belongs to someone else,
that the taking is without consent, then it can be decided that a crime
of theft is committed; in other words, the statement has been
verified.
 Moral statements as expressions of feelings
• What then would prevent one in applying the same procedure in
establishing the truth or falsehood of a moral statement.
• For instance, the moral principle or rule is "stealing is wrong" that
it is explained by moral or ethics teachers that the statement is meant
to be referring to an act of taking someone else property without the
owner's consent.
• The emotivist will still argue that such argument only proves that a
certain individual act has characteristic that can be described as
stealing. It does not make the statement "stealing is wrong" as a
factual statement, which is correct, since all maxims or rules are non-
factual and only the particular instances evaluated on the
basis of these rules would be considered as factual.
 Managing Feelings
Aristotle wrote:
• "Anyone can get angry-that is easy---but
to do this to the right person, to the right
extent, at the right time with the right
motive, and in the right way, that is not
for everyone, nor is it easy. (Book II,
Nicomachean Ethics).
 KEY TAKEAWAYS
• Feelings can be obstacles to making right decisions but
they can also help in making the right decisions.
• Feelings can help persons in making the right decisions if
they are reasonably managed.
• Acting on one's convictions imply involvement of both
reason and feeling.
• One teaches effectively when he/she touches the heart.
This is the main feature of value education that works.
• To be an ethical person, one must manage his/her feelings
well.
THANK YOU!
 CHAPTER III: HUMAN ACT

LESSON 4
Reason and Impartiality as
Minimum Requirements for
Morality
Intended Learning Outcomes:
• To define reason and impartiality as minimum
requirements for morality

• To apply the 7-step moral reasoning model and the value

clarification process
• The minimum requirements of morality are
reason and impartiality.
• “Moral judgments must be backed up by
good reason and impartiality.”
• Morality requires the impartial consideration
of each individual's interests.
• Moral judgments, or resolving a dilemma of
moral judgments must be backed by good
reason.
• Reason and impartiality refer to a mental
activity following the basic principle of
consistency, the lack of contradiction between
one idea and another.
• It is a process of deriving necessary conclusion
from premises, avoiding all forms of deception
or fallacy of reasoning. It avoids ad hominem,
by not attacking the personality of the
opponent and instead directing one's
argument against his idea.
• Reason avoids ad misericordiam, appeal to
pity, since appearing miserable does not
improve an argument.
• Reason does not resort to ad verecundiam,
appeal to authority, one's power and influence
cannot make a wrong right.
 In other words, good reasons include consistent and
coherent reasons.
• A logical, impartial, objective reason avoids
ambiguities like equivocation, circular reasoning,
amphibology, etc.
• Coherent reasoning is needed to establish truth and
meaningfulness of moral judgments.
• "Morality requires impartial consideration of each
individual's interest."
 In other words, good reasons include consistent and
coherent reasons.
• In arriving at a sound moral judgment you must listen to
everyone trying to speak.
• Biases and prejudices must be placed between brackets,
suspended.
• Everyone's message, silent or verbal, should be allowed to
be unveiled.
• Everyone has always something to tell.
• No has a monopoly of the truth.
• A moral subject must be seen from various
perspectives and standpoints.
 SCOTT RAE'S 7 STEPS OF MORAL REASONING
Scott Rae’s Moral Reasoning (1996)

1. Gather the facts, information.

"The simplest way of clarifying an ethical dilemma is

to make sure the facts are clear.
 SCOTT RAE'S 7 STEPS OF MORAL REASONING
Scott Rae’s Moral Reasoning (1996)

2. Determine the ethical issues, similar to "statement of the

problem.
• The competing interests are what create the dilemma.
• Moral values and virtues must support the competing
interests in order for an ethical dilemma to exist.
• If you cannot identify the underlying values/ virtues then
you do not have an ethical dilemma.
• Often people hold these positions strongly and with
passion because of the value/virtue beneath them.
 SCOTT RAE'S 7 STEPS OF MORAL REASONING
Scott Rae’s Moral Reasoning (1996)

3. Determine what virtues/principles have a bearing on the

case.
• This is similar to identifying the relevant factors (internal
and external).
• "In an ethical dilemma certain values and principles are
central to the competing positions. Identify these.
Determine if some should be given more weight than
others. Ask what the source for the principle is -
constitution, culture, natural law, religious tradition...
These supplement biblical principles."
 SCOTT RAE'S 7 STEPS OF MORAL REASONING
Scott Rae’s Moral Reasoning (1996)

4. List the alternatives or develop a list of options.

• "Creatively determine possible courses of action

for your dilemma. Some will almost immediately
be discarded but generally the more you list the
greater potential for coming up with a really good
one. It will also help you come up with a broader
selection of ideas."
 SCOTT RAE'S 7 STEPS OF MORAL REASONING
Scott Rae’s Moral Reasoning (1996)

5. Compare the alternatives with the virtues/principles.

• "This step eliminates alternatives as they are weighed by the

moral principles which have a bearing on the case. Potentially
the issue will be resolved here as all alternatives except one are
eliminated. Here you must satisfy all the relevant virtues and
values - so at least some of the alternatives will be eliminated
(even if you still have to go on to step 6). Often here you have to
weigh principles and virtues - make sure you have a good
reason for each weighing."
 SCOTT RAE'S 7 STEPS OF MORAL REASONING
Scott Rae’s Moral Reasoning (1996)
6. Consider the consequences or test the options.
If you disclose the information directly possible consequences
include;
• family feel alienated, cultural values have been violated
• family may take patient to another hospital
• patient may 'give up’
• patient might be happy they are finally being told the truth." If
you continue withholding information possible consequences
include:
• patient continues to be fearful and anxious about the treatment
• patient finds out somehow and trust is compromised family are
happy cultural values are being respected.
 In general, the following may be used to test the options:
(Davis, 1999)
• Harm test: Does this option do less harm than the alternatives?
• Publicity test: Would I want my choice of this option published in
the newspaper?
• Defensibility test: Could I defend my choice of this option before
a congressional committee or committee of peers?
• Reversibility test: Would I still think this option was a good choice
if I were adversely affected by it?
• Colleague test: What do my colleagues say when I describe my
problem and suggest this option as my solution?
In general, the following may be used to test the options:
(Davis, 1999)

• Professional test: What might my profession's governing body for

ethics say about this option?
• Organization test: What does my company's ethics officer or legal
counsel say about this?
 SCOTT RAE'S 7 STEPS OF MORAL REASONING
Scott Rae’s Moral Reasoning (1996)

7. Make a decision.
• "Ethical decisions rarely have pain-free solutions it
might be you have to choose the solution with the
least number of problems/painful consequences.
Even when making a "good" decision you might
still lose sleep over it!"
 Values Clarification
■ Moral reasoning either arrives at what is right
or wrong, good or bad (valuable or not
valuable). The moral reasoning process may
thus follow a model called values clarification.
■ Values clarification method as a part of the
moral reasoning model consists of a series of
questions which one may ask himself or others
in order to arrive at one's true values, values
that he really possesses and acts upon.
The following consists of the steps of the values clarification
model: (Raths, L. et al, 1978)
1. Choosing freely
Did you choose this value freely? Where do you
suppose you first got that idea?" or "Are you the only one
among your friends who feels this way?"
2. Choosing from alternatives
"What reasons do you have for your choice?" or
"How long did you think about this problem before you
decided?"
The following consists of the steps of the values clarification
model: (Raths, L. et al, 1978)
3. Choosing after thoughtful consideration
"What would happen if this choice were
implemented? If another choice was implemented?" or
"What is good about this choice? What could be good
about the other choices?"
4. Prizing and being happy with the choice
"Are you happy about feeling this way?" or "Why
is this important to you?"
The following consists of the steps of the values clarification
model: (Raths, L. et al, 1978)
5. Prizing and willing to affirm the choice publicly
"Would you be willing to tell the class how you
feel?" or "Should someone who feels like you stand up in
public and tell people how he or she feels?"
6. Acting on the choice
"What will you do about your choice? What will
you do next?" or "Are you interested in joining this group
of people who think the same as you do about this?"
The following consists of the steps of the values clarification
model: (Raths, L. et al, 1978)

7. Acting repeatedly in some pattern of life

"Have you done anything about it? Will you do it
again?" or "Should you try to get other people interested in
this?"
Three big clarifying questions:
1) Did you choose your action freely from among
alternatives after thoughtfully considering the consequences
of each alternative;
2) Do you prize or cherish your choice by publicly affirming
it and by campaigning for others to choose it?;
3) Do you act on your choice repeatedly and consistently? If
the answers to the questions are a YES, then the moral choice
or moral decision can be said to be a product of reason.
 Critique: Creative Responsibility
One significant guide to the moral reasoning process is what ethicist like
Fr. Gorospe (1974) termed as "creative responsibility”, A creative
response.

1. involves positive human action:

… First, a creative and fitting response involves some form of positive
human action...
 Critique: Creative Responsibility
One significant guide to the moral reasoning process is what ethicist like
Fr. Gorospe (1974) termed as "creative responsibility”, A creative
response.

2. creates a response:
…Second, to give a fitting human response in some form of positive
action inevitably means "create" a response. The creative responsibility is
something to be discovered and created and is best envisioned in concrete
cases...
 Critique: Creative Responsibility
One significant guide to the moral reasoning process is what ethicist like
Fr. Gorospe (1974) termed as "creative responsibility”, A creative
response.

3. means to choose from among many possible fitting responses,

…Third, a creative response means one has to choose from among many
possible fitting responses. It is impossible to find only one possible fitting
response to a human situation...
 Critique: Creative Responsibility
One significant guide to the moral reasoning process is what ethicist like
Fr. Gorospe (1974) termed as "creative responsibility”, A creative
response.

4. individual must be in constant dialogue with the community.

…Fourth, in order that creative response of the individual be authentic he
must be in constant dialogue with the community and culture in which he
lives. Creative responsibility is not only individual but collective; it is
co-responsibility…
 Critique: Creative Responsibility
One technique of coming up with a creative response is
applying the phenomenological method of suspending
judgement, placing former knowledge, biases, prejudices,
etc. between brackets, letting the thing be or show itself as
itself.
 KEY TAKEAWAYS
• The minimum requirements of morality are reason and
impartiality.
• Moral decisions should be arrived at by the use of reason.
• The use of reason is exemplified in the 7-step model of
Scott Rae and the value clarification process.
• Fallacious reasoning such as ad hominem, ad verecundiam
and ad miserecordiam has no place in moral decisions.
 Thanks!
Do you have any questions?

CREDITS: This presentation template was created by Slidesgo, and

includes icons by Flaticon, infographics & images by Freepik and content
by Sandra Medina