CHAPTER THREE

ETHICAL DECISION MAKING AND MORAL JUDGMENTS

1.1 Chapter Introduction
One has to make decisions about which desire to satisfy and which to give up or postpone. How to make a
right or correct decision and by what standard that one decision is right and another wrong is always a
puzzle. One of the functions of morality is to give guidance in dealing with these puzzles. On the other hand,
there are always conflicts among people. It is always a problem for a society to maintain order and to prevent
or solve the conflicts among people reasonably. Another function of morality is to provide principles and
rules that are acceptable to everyone and encourage people to live together peacefully and cooperatively.
Many problems will arise in people’s lives and in society. It is better to go back to the ethical theories to
reflect upon the meaning and the end of morality and see what kind of principles can be a guide in taking
action or in making moral judgments. One also needs to know why one should be moral. This chapter aims to
introduce ethical decision making process and the need to be moral.

1.2 Chapter Objectives

After reading this chapter, students will be able to:
o Identify the moral foundations we base our ethical standards.
o Understand those standards how they applied to specific situations we face.
o Identify how good ethical decision made.
o Understand why we need to be moral.

1.3 How Can We Make Ethical Decisions And Actions?

In real life conditions we may get difficulties to always do the right thing. What we often considered as right
and correct might put us in difficult condition with others and affect our social relation adversely. Individuals
could give their own justification to testify that they are Right or correct! We often claim that we make right
decision and actions. We regret when we make wrong decision and action. The ethical nature of our action
and decision, however, is very much dependent upon our notion of ``Good’ and ``Bad, `` Right and``
wrong``. Before we see how human beings judge the morality of their actions, let raise some puzzling
questions: What things are good or bad?

There are things which we consider good or desirable for their result-for what they lead to. There are also
things which we consider good not because of what they lead to but because of what they are in themselves:
this are considered as worth having or perusing not merely as way of getting other things but because of their
own intrinsic nature. The first kind of good is called instrumental good because the goodness of these things
lies in their being instruments towards the attainment of the other things which are considered good not
simply as instruments. The second category of good is called intrinsic good because we value these things
(whatever they may turn out to be) not for what they lead to but for what they are.

1
Have you ever think of the opposite. Yes, there are things which are instrumentally bad and intrinsically bad.
Some things can fulfill both qualities. In our country things such as Female Genital Mutilation, early
marriage, kidnapping, abduction, Ignorance, poverty, corruption, murder some of the things which are
considered to be unethical or bad or evil practices which are to be eradicated.

One of the key tasks of ethical reasoning, generally, is to analyze and critically consider the values we hold
and the claims we make in relation to the perceived obligations that we might have towards one another.
Applied to the processes of death and dying and the care provided at end of life, key values that arise include
sanctity of life (the fact of being alive is itself deeply valued), quality of life (the fact of having positive
experiences and avoiding negative experiences is considered deeply morally significant), autonomy
(respecting someone’s preferences in relation to where, how and when they die is, increasingly, considered to
be deeply morally significant and challenging).

A second key task of ethics is to evaluate the adequacy of reasons that we give for our actions: it considers,
for example, whether the reasons offered to support a particular course of action are based on sound evidence
and/or logical argument. Applied to the processes of death and dying, reasons that are evaluated might be the
arguments a health professional offers in support of resuscitating an incompetent terminally-ill patient or a
parent’s reasons for refusing medical treatment for a severely disabled neonate.

The tasks of weighing ethical values and evaluating different ethical arguments are unlike many other kinds
of human tasks. Ethical values are usually not as easy to understand as other kinds of values, e.g., it is
probably easier to explain the (mainly) practical value of energy than it is to explain the ethical value of
courage. In turn, it is easier to test a person’s blood pressure than it is to determine whether or not they are
virtuous.

Moreover, ethical problems are often not as clear as other kinds of problems and resolving ethical problems
as definitively is not always possible. The aim of ethics then, is not, despite popular opinion, to take the high
moral ground and tell people what to do, but, rather, to offer tools for thinking about difficult problems.
Good ethical thinking purposefully seeks out the grey in questions and concerns in order to acknowledge the
diversity and complexity of roles, situations and circumstances that arise in human life and relationships. As
complex as ethical situations may be, however, there is still an obligation on everyone involved in ethically-
challenging situations to resolve any problems that arise in the most sincere, reasonable and collaborative
way possible. This means that they must be prepared to review and revise their position in the light of
reflection, discussion and changing circumstances.

1.3.1 Ethical Principles and Values of Moral Judgments

The branch of philosophical study that focuses on ‘ethics’ is concerned with studying and/or building up a
coherent set of ‘rules’ or principles by which people ought to live. The theoretical study of ethics is not
normally something that many people would regard as being necessary in order for them to conduct their
everyday activities. In place of systematically examined ethical frameworks, most people instead carry

2
around a useful set of day-to-day ‘rules of thumb’ that influence and govern their behavior; commonly, these
include rules such as ‘it is wrong to steal’, ‘it is right to help people in need’, and so on.

But, sometimes the vicissitudes and complexities of life mean that these simple rules are sometimes put to
the test. Consider the idea that it is wrong to kill. Does this mean that capital punishment is wrong? Is it
wrong to kill animals? Is killing in self-defense wrong? Is the termination of pregnancy wrong? Is euthanasia
wrong? If we try to apply our everyday notions of right and wrong to these questions, straightforward
answers are not always forthcoming. We need to examine these questions in more detail; and we need
theoretical frameworks that can help us to analyze complex problems and to find rational, coherent solutions
to those problems. Whilst some people attempt to do this work individually, for themselves, philosophers
attempt to find general answers that can be used by everyone in society.

Think about a significant decision that you have made that had an effect (either for good or bad) on the lives
of other people. This could be a decision about changing a job, moving home, responding to a dilemma,
helping somebody who was in difficulty, etc.
How did you arrive at your decision? Was your decision based explicitly on ideas of what was right and
wrong? Try to examine and record precisely the justifications for your decision. Can you identify any
underlying principles or rules which you used to reach your decision?
Examples of such underlying principles or rules might include:
 ‘I should do the best thing for my career in the long run.’
 ‘It is OK to tell someone a lie if it prevents someone from being hurt by the truth.’
‘I should always help someone in difficulty.’

1.3.2 Moral intuitions and Critical Reasoning

The study of ethics involves reasoning about our feelings. In other words, it involves making sense of and
rationalizing our intuitions about what is ‘right’ or ‘good’. Almost all people, to a greater or lesser extent, are
capable of experiencing feelings of empathy towards others. Empathy provides us with a sense of what
others are feeling and may thereby allow us to identify with other people. Empathy therefore gives us what
Traer (2013) refers to as our moral sentiments; and ethical reasoning about these sentiments gives us our
moral principles. The integration of these moral sentiments and principles, Traer (2013) argues, is our
conscience. Our moral conscience, then, is based on emotions, but should also be supported by reason.

All societies are characterized by their own ethical ideas – expressed in terms of attitudes and beliefs – and
their own customs (their notions of what is considered customary). Some of those ethics are formalized in the
laws and regulations of a society, nation or state. Such customs and laws can influence the consciences and
the moral sentiments of those living in a society, as individuals acquire ideas and attitudes from their families
and from their wider society. Philosophical ethics, however, asks us to take a step back from these influences
and instead to reflect critically on our sentiments and attitudes.

3
 [Link] Rationalization
Studying ethics, then, involves attempting to find valid reasons for the moral arguments that we make. Most
people already have general ideas – or what philosophers call ‘intuitions’ or ‘presumptions’ – about what
they think is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. But a philosophical approach to ethics requires people to think critically
about the moral ideas that they hold, to support or refute those ideas with convincing arguments, and to be
able to articulate and explain the reasons and assumptions on which those arguments are based. In moral
philosophy, an argument is not simply about our beliefs or opinions; instead, it is about the reasons
underlying those beliefs or opinions. This means that the real value of discussing and debating ethical
questions is not to ‘win the argument’ or to ‘score points’ against the other person! It is more important to
provide carefully considered arguments to support our ideas, and to allow for rational – and deeper –
understanding of the reasons underlying our beliefs, ideas and attitudes. Crucially, this requires careful
listening to, analysis of and learning from the arguments that others make.

One common fault with many arguments about what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ – and – involves what is known as
a rationalization. A rationalization occurs when we use what at first glance seem to be rational or credible
motives to cover up our true (and perhaps unconscious) motives. For example, if a landowner seeks to build
a plastic recycling plant and states that this is driven by a desire to create local employment opportunities –
whereas in fact their true motive is to make a profit – then this is a rationalization. The landowner is not
giving their true reasons for wanting to build the plant. If, however, they argue that they want to make a
personal profit and create local jobs, then they may be giving two true reasons for their motives.

[Link] Types of Reasoning

We can uncover these types of errors in our own and others’ arguments by using what he calls ‘critical
reasoning’. Three forms of critical reasoning that individuals can use to justify their arguments are outlined
below;

Three forms of critical reasoning:

‘Reasoning by analogy explains one thing by comparing it to something else that is similar,
although also different. In a good analogy, the similarity outweighs the dissimilarity and is
clarifying. For instance, animals are like and unlike humans, as humans are also animals. Is the
similarity sufficiently strong to support the argument that we should ascribe rights to nonhuman
animals as we do to humans?’ ‘Deductive reasoning applies a principle to a situation. For
instance, if every person has human rights, and you are a person, then you have human rights like
every person.’
‘Inductive reasoning involves providing evidence to support a hypothesis. The greater the
evidence for a hypothesis, the more we may rely on it.’ The fact that there is mounting evidence
that the burning of fossil fuels is having a detrimental effect on global climate, for example, is
used to substantiate the argument that we have a moral duty to reduce carbon emissions.

4
 [Link] Ethics and Religious Faith
There is another important argument that people use when making ethical arguments: religious faith. For
many people, ’morality and religious faith go hand in hand’. Rather than relying on rational arguments, some
people view actions as being right or wrong in terms of whether they are commanded by a god. Some moral
philosophers do not view arguments based on religious faith as being rationally defensible. They believe that
we can determine through rational reflection what is right and wrong. If a god commands only what is right
then, logically, this makes divine commands unnecessary; we are able to know what is right or wrong
without relying on any divine commandments, as we can use rational reflection.

However, faith-based arguments are relevant to moral philosophy for several reasons. For a start, people do
not always agree on what is right or wrong. It is not therefore clear that we can determine what is right and
wrong simply through rational reflection. Additionally, given that so many people in the world do look to
religion for moral guidance, we should not underestimate the ability of ‘the moral teachings of a religious
tradition […] to persuade the public to embrace a higher moral standard’. While we may insist that moral
principles and decisions should be justified by rational arguments, and thus consideration of religious
arguments should not be excluded from the study of ethics. Whether or not one personally chooses to accept
faith-based arguments as valid within ethical discussions is a decision that requires careful consideration.

[Link] Testing moral arguments

Critical reasoning is about asking questions whenever anyone gives us a reason to support an argument.
What kind of reasoning are they using? If they are using a principle to support their argument (deductive
reasoning), then what kind of principle is it? Is the principle rational? If they are providing evidence to
support their argument (inductive reasoning) then is the evidence reliable? Have any motives that might be
behind their arguments been clarified (i,e. are they giving rationalizations, not reasons)? Does the conclusion
drawn make sense, given the reasons they have given? All of these questions that we ask about peoples’
arguments may seem a little onerous and off-putting. With such rigorous criteria, some people may feel that
they don’t want to make any argument at all, as they are bound to make mistakes in their reasoning!
However, most people already use critical reasoning when they make arguments and question other people’s
arguments. We have an idea of what we think is right based on our experience (our ethical presumptions),
and we explain those ideas to other people based on our feelings (intuitions) and reasons. It is important and
useful to develop the ability to test your own arguments and those of others, both to address the dilemmas
that occur in our personal lives, our communities and the organizations for which we work. There are three
main ways of testing a moral argument. These are outlined in below;

5
Three ways to test a moral argument:
(1) Factual accuracy. The 18th century philosopher David Hume (1711—1776) argued that we
should not derive an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’. This means that we cannot say that something is wrong
or right simply based on how things are. This is reasonable, but it does not mean that ethical
discussion should be divorced from fact; the accuracy of the factual content of a discussion is
very important. Consider the example — of someone who maintains that giving aid to charities
working in Africa is wrong because they believes that 90% of the money donated in fact goes to
paying wealthy consultants and NGO workers, and only 10% goes to alleviate poverty. If this
person were shown that this was factually incorrect, and that in fact 90% of all donations were
used to alleviate poverty, then their moral argument would lose its force.
(2) Consistency. Arguments need to be consistent. One can only argue that it is morally wrong
to kill one person and yet morally acceptable to kill another, if one can demonstrate that there is
a morally relevant difference between the two individuals. For example, the moral argument that
debts owed by poorer nations to international lenders should be cancelled. Does this therefore
mean that all poor people who owe money to banks should also have their debts cancelled? If
you don’t think that all individual debts should be cancelled but you do think that poorer
countries’ debts should be cancelled, then you have to show that there is a moral difference
between the two. Otherwise your arguments are inconsistent.
(3) Good will. This one is the most difficult criterion to quantify. While arguments may be
factually correct and consistent, they also need to ‘exemplify good will’. This involves resorting
to our intuitions and emotions, which are notoriously difficult to integrate with rigorous
theoretical debate.

1.3.3 Thinking Ethically: A framework for Moral Decision Making

The first step in analyzing moral issues is obvious but not always easy: Get the facts. Some moral issues
create controversies simply because we do not bother to check the facts. This first step, although obvious is
also among the most important and the most frequently overlooked. But having the facts is not enough. Facts
by themselves only tell us what is; they do not tell us what ought to be. In addition to getting the facts,
resolving an ethical issue also requires an appeal to values.

Although ethics deals with right and wrong, it is not a discipline that always leads everyone to the same
conclusions. Deciding an ethical issue can be equally difficult for conservatives and liberals. Of course, there
are situations that are wrong by any standard. But there are other issues where right and wrong is less clear.
To guide our reflection on such difficult questions, philosophers, religious teachers and other thinkers have
shaped various approaches to ethical decision-making. The five different approaches to values to deal with

6
moral issues are: Fairness or Justice, the common Good, the Utilitarian (remember this idea is discussed
previously), the Rights, and the Virtues.

[Link] Fairness or Justice Approach

The fairness or justice approach to ethics has its roots in the teachings of the ancient Greek philosopher
Aristotle who said that “equals should be treated equally and unequal’s unequally”. The basic moral question
in this approach is:

 How fair is an action?

 Does it treat everyone in the same way, or does it show favoritism and discrimination?
Favoritism gives benefits to some people without a justifiable reason for singling them out; discrimination
imposes burdens on people who are no different from those on whom the burdens are not imposed. Both
favoritism and discrimination are unjust and wrong. Aristotle believed that ethical knowledge is not precise
knowledge, like logic and mathematics, but general knowledge like knowledge of nutrition and exercise.
Also, as it is a practical discipline rather than a theoretical one; he thought that in order to become "good",
one could not simply study what virtue is; one must actually be virtuous. Analogously, in order to become
good at a sport like football, one does not simply study but also practices. Aristotle first establishes what was
virtuous. He began by determining that everything was done with some goal in mind and that goal is 'good.'
The ultimate goal he called the Highest Good: happiness. Aristotle contended that happiness could not be
found only in pleasure or only in fame and honor. He finally finds happiness "by ascertaining the specific
function of man". A human's function is to do what makes it human, to be good at what sets it apart from
everything else: the ability to reason or logos. A person that does this is the happiest because he is fulfilling
his purpose or nature as found in the rational soul.

Depending on how well he did this, Aristotle said humans belonged to one of four categories: the virtuous,
the continent, the incontinent and the vicious. Generally, this approach focuses on how fairly or unfairly our
actions distribute benefits and burdens among the members of a group. This approach asks what is fair for all
stakeholders, or people who have an interest in the outcome.” Fairness requires consistency in the way
people are treated. The principle states: “Treat people the same unless there are morally relevant differences
between them.”

[Link] The Common Good Approach

The Greek philosophers have also contributed the notion that life in community is a good in itself and our
actions should contribute to that life. This approach suggests that the interlocking relationships of society are
the basis of ethical reasoning and that respect and compassion for all others especially the vulnerable are
requirements of such reasoning. This approach also calls attention to the common conditions that are
important to the welfare of everyone. This may be a system of laws, effective police and fire departments,
health care, a public educational system, or even public recreation areas.

7
This approach to ethics assumes a society comprising individuals whose own good is inextricably linked to
the good of the community. Community members are bound by the pursuit of common values and goals. The
common good is a notion that originated more than 2,000 years ago in the writings of Plato, Aristotle, and
Cicero. More recently, contemporary ethicist John Rawls defined the common good as "certain general
conditions that are equally to everyone's advantage." In this approach, we focus on ensuring that the social
policies, social systems, institutions, and environments on which we depend are beneficial to all. Examples
of goods common to all include affordable health care, effective public safety, peace among nations, a just
legal system, and an unpolluted environment. Appeals to the common good urge us to view ourselves as
members of the same community, reflecting on broad questions concerning the kind of society we want to
become and how we are to achieve that society. While respecting and valuing the freedom of individuals to
pursue their own goals, the common good approach challenges us also to recognize and further those goals
we share in common. It presents a vision of society as a community whose members are joined in a shared
pursuit of values and goals they hold in common.

The principle of the common good approach states;

“What is ethical is what advances the common good.”

[Link] The Rights Approach:

The other important approach to ethics has its roots in the philosophy of the 18th century thinker Immanuel
Kant and others like him who focused on the individual’s right to choose for her or himself. According to
these philosophers, what makes human beings different from mere things is that people have dignity based
on their ability to choose freely what they will do with their lives, and they have a fundamental moral right to
have these choices respected. People are not objects to be manipulated; it is a violation of human dignity to
use people in ways they do not freely choose. Many different but related rights exist besides this basic one.
These other rights can be thought of as different aspects of the basic right to be treated as we choose. Among
these rights are:

o The Right to the Truth: We have a right to be told the truth and to be informed about matters that
significantly affect choices.
o The Right of Privacy: We have the right to do, believe, and say whatever we choose in our personal
lives so long as we do not violate the rights of others.
o The Right not to be injured: We have the right not to be harmed or injured unless we freely and
knowingly do something to deserve punishment or we freely and knowingly choose to risk such injuries.
o The Right to what is agreed: We have the right to what has been promised those with whom we have
freely entered into a contract or agreement.

In deciding whether an action is moral or immoral using this approach, we must ask, does the action respect
the moral rights of everyone? Actions are wrong to the extent they violate the rights of individuals; the more
serious the violation, the more wrongful the action.
8
Activity:
Reflect on one of your ethical decisions. Which approach (es) did you use when making your
determination? Evaluate the effectiveness of the approach (es) as well as the quality of your
choice. What did you learn from this experience?

The Rights Approach identifies certain interests tests or activities that our behavior must respect, especially
those areas of our lives that are of such value to us that they merit protection from others. Each person has a
fundamental right to be respected and treated as free and equal rational person capable of making his or her
own decisions. This implies other rights (e.g. privacy free consent, freedom of conscience, etc.) that must be
protected if a person is to have the freedom to direct his or her own life.

Generally, in Ethical Problem Solving;

 Once facts have been ascertained, consider five questions when trying to resolve a moral
issue:
1) What benefits and what harms will each course of action produce, and which alternative
will lead to the best overall consequences?
2) What moral rights do the affected parties have, and which course of action best respects
those rights?
3) Which course of action treats everyone the same, except where there is a morally
justifiable reason not to, and does not show favoritism or discrimination?
4) Which course of action advances the common good?
5) Which course of action develops moral virtues?

1.4 To Whom or What Does Morality Apply?

In discussing the application of morality, four aspects may be considered: religious morality, morality and
nature, individual morality, and social morality.

1.4.1 Religious Morality

Religious morality refers to a human being in relationship to a supernatural being or beings. In the Jewish
and Christian traditions, for example, the first three of the Ten Commandments (See the figure below)
pertain to this kind of morality. These commandments deal with a person’s relationship with God, not with
any other human beings. By violating any of these three commandments, a person could, according to this
particular code of ethics, act immorally toward God without acting immorally toward anyone else.

The Ten Commandments

1. I am the Lord, Your God; do not worship false gods.
2. Do not take the name of God in vain.
3. Keep holy the Sabbath Day.
9
4. Honor your father and your mother.
5. Do not kill.
6. Do not commit adultery.
7. Do not steal.
8. Do not bear false witness against your neighbor.
9. Do not covet your neighbor’s spouse.
10. Do not covet your neighbor’s belongings.
(Exod. 20:1–17)

1.4.2 Morality and Nature

“Morality and nature” are refers to a human being in relationship to nature. Natural morality has been
prevalent in all primitive cultures, such as that of the Native American, and in cultures of the Far East. More
recently, the Western tradition has also become aware of the significance of dealing with nature in a moral
manner. Some see nature as being valuable only for the good of humanity, but many others have come to see
it as a good in itself, worthy of moral consideration. With this viewpoint there is no question about whether a
Robinson Crusoe would be capable of moral or immoral actions on a desert island by himself. In the morality
and nature aspect, he could be considered either moral or immoral, depending upon his actions toward the
natural things around him.

1.4.3 Individual Morality

Individual morality refers to individuals in relation to themselves and to an individual code of morality that
may or may not be sanctioned by any society or religion. It allows for a “higher morality,” which can be
found within the individual rather than beyond this world in some supernatural realm. A person may or may
not perform some particular act, not because society, law, or religion says he may or may not, but because he
himself thinks it is right or wrong from within his own conscience.

1.4.4 Social Morality

Social morality concerns a human being in relation to other human beings. It is probably the most important
aspect of morality, in that it cuts across all of the other aspects and is found in more ethical systems than any
of the others. Returning briefly to the desert-island example, most ethicists probably would state that
Robinson Crusoe is incapable of any really moral or immoral action except toward himself and nature. Such
action would be minimal when compared with the potential for morality or immorality if there were nine
other people on the island whom he could subjugate, torture, or destroy. Many ethical systems would allow
that what he would do to himself is strictly his business, “as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else.”

1.5 Who is Morally/Ethically Responsible?

Morality pertains to human beings and only to human beings; all else is speculation. If one wants to attribute
morality to supernatural beings, one has to do so solely on faith. If one wants to hold animals or plants
morally responsible for destructive acts against each other or against humans, then one has to ignore most of

10
the evidence that science has given us concerning the instinctual behavior of such beings and the evidence of
our own everyday observations.

Recent experimentation with the teaching of language to animals suggests that they are at least minimally
capable of developing some thought processes similar to those of humans. It is even possible that they might
be taught morality in the future, as humans are now. If this were to occur, then animals could be held morally
responsible for their actions. At the present time, however, most evidence seems to indicate that they, as well
as plants, should be classified as either non-moral or amoral - that is, they should be considered either as
having no moral sense or as being out of the moral sphere altogether.

Therefore, when we use the terms moral and ethical, we are using them in reference only to human beings.
We do not hold a wolf morally responsible for killing a sheep, or an eagle morally responsible for killing a
chicken. We may kill the wolf or fox for having done this act, but we do not kill it because we hold the
animal morally responsible. We do it because we don‘t want any more of our sheep or chickens to be killed.
At this point in the world‘s history, only human beings can be moral or immoral, and therefore only human
beings should be held morally responsible for their actions and behavior.

1.5.1 Moral Judgments

Moral judgments refer to deciding what is right and what is wrong in human relations. Individuals are
continually judging their own conduct and that of their fellows. They approve of some acts and call them
―right‖ or ―good. They condemn other acts and call them ―wrong‖ or ―evil or bad. Moral judgments
always have to do with the actions of human beings and, in particular, with voluntary actions - those actions
freely chosen. Involuntary actions - those over which people have no control - are rarely open to moral
judgment, as a person usually is not held responsible for an action that she or he did not initiate. Moral
judgments are evaluative because they place value on things or relation or human actions; determine what is
right or wrong, good or bad. They are also normative because they evaluate or assess the moral worth of
something based on some norms or standards.

Finding the right course of action, choosing the right alternative, is not always simple. We can have no
algorithm for judgment, since every application of a rule would itself need supplementing with further rules.
Onora O’Neill argues that moral principles do not provide us with an ―auto-pilot for life‖ and that
―judgment is always needed in using or following – and in flouting – rules or principles, as you have saw
above. When conflicts of interest arise, the solution may require the greatest sensitivity, experience,
discernment, intelligence and goodwill, and even then we may doubt whether we have acted rightly.
However, in judging conduct or action we have to consider motives, means, and consequences and
sometimes the situation.

1. Motives: Motives, as Jesus, Kant, and others have pointed out, are basic for a determination of morality.
The motive refers to the intention or why an action is done. A good motive is a prerequisite to conduct that

11
we approve without qualification. If a good motive is present when an act, through some unforeseen factor,
leads to harmful effects, we tend to disapprove less severely and to say, ―Anyway, he meant well.

Kant, for example, defined the good as the ―good will. Nothing can possibly be conceived in the world, or
even out of it, which can be called good without qualification, except a good will.‖ For Kant, a rational being
strives to do what he or she ought to do and this is to be distinguished from an act that a person does from
either inclination or self-interest. In other words, a person must act out of duty to the moral law - that is,
ought what one to do. The truly moral act, for Kant, not only agrees with the moral law, but is done for the
sake of the moral law - not only as duty requires but because duty requires. In Kantian thinking the seat of
moral worth is the individual’s will, and the good will acts out of a sense of duty.

2. Means: Just as there may be many motives for desiring something, there may be many means for
achieving it. The term means can be defined as an agency, instrument, or method used to attain an end.
Though we expect people to use the best available means to carry out their purposes, we condemn them if
their choice of means impresses us as unjust, cruel, or immoral. On rare occasions we may approve of an act
when means are used that under other conditions would be condemned. However, there is a danger in
proposing that any means may be used, provided the end is good, or that ―the end justifies the means. Once
chosen, the means become part of the general effect of an act.

3. Consequences: Consequences are the effects or results of a moral decision based on a value. We expect
the consequences of an act that we call ―right‖ to be good. Ordinarily, when people ask, ―what is right?
They are thinking about the consequences of the action. This depends on what ethical principle is in
operation. Kant agrees to the good motive, utilitarians to the result.

In general, society judges conduct ―right if it proceeds from a good motive, through the use of the best
available means, to consequences that are good. If these conditions are not fulfilled, we condemn the action
or approve it with reservations. We rarely approve an action when the results are evil or wrong.

4. The Moral Situation: A moral situation involves moral agents - human beings who act, are empowered to
make choices, and consciously make decisions. As moral agents, demands are made on us and place us under
obligations: we have both duties and rights. We are faced with moral alternatives, and we can better weigh
those alternatives when we have an understanding of the ingredients of the moral situation.

3.5.2. What Makes an Action Moral?

Sometimes we think of ―moral means morally good. But, philosophically, it refers to an action which comes
within the scope of morality, that is, an action which is morally significant either in positive way (because it
is good or right) or in a negative way (because the action is good or bad). Not all actions have a moral sense.
Many of the actions we perform in life , such as putting on a raincoat, sharpening a pencil, or counting
apples, standing on your head, are not in themselves either good or bad acts. Such actions are morally neutral
or non-moral. By contrast, stealing from your libraries, punching people or helping the disadvantage are
considered as morally significant actions. But, what makes an act enter the moral arena or what features of
12
action make us judge them to be good or bad, right or wrong? The following are features that make an action
moral:

A. A moral act involves an agent: If something is a natural event or an action performed by animals, then it
is morally neutral - it does not appear on our moral radars. Humans can be moral agents, or any creatures that
can freely and thoughtfully choose its actions will count as a moral agent.

B. A moral act involves intention: An intention here refers to our motives that are important to determine
the rightness or wrongness of an action. If an action is done accidentally, it may be counted as a morally
neutral action. However, some unintentional acts, such as those done through negligence, can be moral.
Neglecting our duties, even accidentally, make us morally culpable.

C. A moral act affects others: A moral action needs not only an agent and to be deliberate but also needs to
affect others (those we might call moral patients) in significant ways, that is, an action that has harmful (be it
physical, psychological, emotional, or depriving others of happiness) or beneficial consequences for others.

The claim that morality only governs behavior that affects others is somewhat controversial. Some have
claimed that morality also governs behavior that affects only the agent herself, such as taking recreational
drugs, masturbation, and not developing one's talents. Confusion about the content of morality arises because
morality is not always distinguished from religion. Regarding self-affecting behavior as governed by
morality is supported by the idea that we are created by God and are obliged to obey his commands, and so
may be a holdover from the time when morality was not clearly distinguished from religion. This religious
holdover might also affect the claim that some sexual practices such as homosexuality are immoral; but those
who distinguish morality from religion do not regard homosexuality, per se, as a moral matter.

Generally, a moral action is one which:

 Is performed by agents, creatures that are capable of free choice/ free will
 Is the result of intention; the action was done on purpose with a particular motive
 Has a significant consequence on others in respect of harm or benefits it brings about.

1.6 Why should human beings be moral?

The question that is worth mentioning at this point is ―Why should human beings be moral? Another way of
putting the problem is as follows: Is there any clear foundation or basis for morality - can any reasons be
found for human beings to be good and do right acts rather than be bad and do wrong acts? Let us assume for
the moment that there is no supernatural morality and see if we can find any other reasons why people should
be moral.

There can be no society without moral regulation; man is man only because he lives in a society;
take away from man all that has a social origin and nothing is left but an animal compare with
other animals.
We should be moral because being moral is following the rules designed to overrule self-interest
13
whenever it is in the interest of every one alike that everyone should set aside his interest. John
Hospers

A. Argument from Enlightened Self-Interest

One can certainly argue on a basis of enlightened self-interest that it is, at the very least, generally better to
be good rather than bad and to create a world and society that is good rather than one that is bad. As a matter
of fact, self-interest is the sole basis of one ethical theory, ethical egoism. However, it is not being suggested
at this point that one ought to pursue one‘s own self-interest. Rather, an argument is being presented that if
everyone tried to do and be good and tried to avoid and prevent bad, it would be in everyone‘s self-interest.
For example, if within a group of people no one killed, stole, lied, or cheated, then each member of the group
would benefit. An individual member of the group could say, ―it‘s in my self-interest to do good rather than
bad because I stand to benefit if I do and also because I could be ostracized or punished if I don‘t.‖ Therefore,
even though it is not airtight, the argument from enlightened self-interest is compelling.

B. Argument from Tradition and Law

Related to the foregoing argument is the argument from tradition and law. This argument suggests that
because traditions and laws, established over a long period of time, govern the behavior of human beings,
and because these traditions and laws urge human beings to be moral rather than immoral, there are good
reasons for being so. Self-interest is one reason, but another is respect for the human thought and effort that
has gone into establishing such laws and traditions and transferring them from one historic period and one
culture to another. This can be an attractive argument, even though it tends to suppress questioning of
traditions and laws - a kind of questioning that is at the core of creative moral reasoning. It is interesting to
note that most of us probably learned morality through being confronted with this argument, the religious
argument, and the experiences surrounding it. Don‘t we all remember being told we should or should not do
something because it was or was not in our own self-interest, because God said it was right or wrong, or
because it was the way we were supposed to act in our family, school, society, and world?

C. Common Human Needs

Are there any other reasons we can give as to why human beings should be moral? If we examine human
nature as empirically and rationally as we can, we discover that all human beings have many needs, desires,
goals, and objectives in common. For example, people generally seem to need friendship, love, happiness,
freedom, peace, creativity, and stability in their lives, not only for themselves but for others, too. It doesn‘t
take much further examination to discover that in order to satisfy these needs, people must establish and
follow moral principles that encourage them to cooperate with one another and that free them from fear that
they will lose their lives, be mutilated, or be stolen from, lied to, cheated, severely restricted, or imprisoned.

Morality is not of course identical with following self-interest. If it were, there could be no
conflict between morality and self-interest and no point in having rules overriding self-interest.
John Hospers
14
Morality exists, in part, because of human needs and through recognition of the importance of living together
in a cooperative and significant way. It may not be the case that all human beings can be convinced that they
should be moral, or even that it will always be in each individual‘s self-interest to be moral. However, the
question ―why should human beings be moral?‖ generally can best be answered by the statement that
adhering to moral principles enables human beings to live their lives as peacefully, happily, creatively, and
meaningfully as is possible.

Activity:
Apply all ethical approaches presented in the chapter. Keep a record of your deliberations and
conclusions using each one? Did you reach different solutions based on the theory you used?
Were some of the perspectives more useful in this situation? Are you more confident after
looking at the problem from a variety of perspectives? Write up your findings.

In general, in a society wherein morality is declined, crime, death, looting, instability, social deviance,
suicide, human right violation/ gross human right violation/, corruption and other socio, economic and
political crises will prevail. With human self-interest as strong as it is, what can motivate us to always follow
the rules of morality? Asked more simply, “Why be moral?” Among the more common answers are these:

 Behaving morally is a matter of self-respect.

 People won’t like us if we behave immorally.
 Society punishes immoral behavior.
 God tells us to be moral.
 Parents need to be moral role models for their children.

These are all good answers, and each may be a powerful motivation for the right person. With religious
believers, for example, having faith in God and divine judgment might prompt them to act properly. With
parents, the responsibility of raising another human being might force them to adopt a higher set of moral
standards than they would otherwise. However, many of these answers won’t apply to every person:
nonbelievers, nonparents, people who don’t respect themselves, people who think that they can escape
punishment.

There are two distinct components to the question “Why be moral?”

1) Why does society need moral rules?
2) Why should I be moral?

From Hobbes’s perspective, morality consists of a set of rules such that, if nearly everyone follows them,
then nearly everyone will flourish. These rules restrict our freedom but promote greater freedom and
wellbeing. More specifically, the five social benefits of establishing and following moral rules accomplish
the following:

15
 a) Keep society from falling apart.
b) Reduce human suffering.
c) Promote human flourishing.
d) Resolve conflicts of interest in just and orderly ways.
e) Assign praise and blame, reward and punishment, and guilt.

All these benefits have in common the fact that morality is a social activity: It has to do with society, not the
individual in isolation. If only one person exists on an island, no morality exists; indeed, some behavior
would be better for that person than others—such as eating coconuts rather than sand—but there would not
be morality in the full meaning of that term. However, as soon as a second person appears on that island,
morality also appears. Morality is thus a set of rules that enable us to reach our collective goals. Imagine
what society would be like if we did whatever we pleased without obeying moral rules.

(“Why should I be moral?”) Is more complicated as the game Cooperate or Cheat shows. Ultimately, I
should be moral because, by occasionally allowing some disadvantage for myself, I may obtain an overall,
long-term advantage. Even when it seems as though I can break moral rules without getting caught, I still
need to consistently follow them because, although an individual moral act may sometimes be at odds with
my self-interest, the complete moral form of life in which the act is rooted is not against my self-interest.

Chapter Summary
Ethical reasoning ability is considered vitally important in the shared concepts and principles that guide
common ethical issues. It offers a rationale that provides the impetus for elaborating on an ethical reasoning
structure. Ethical theories and principles are the foundations of ethical analysis because they are the
viewpoints from which guidance can be obtained along the pathway to a decision. A person making an
ethical decision needs a procedure to follow to insure that s/he makes her/his decision with rationality and
respect--a decision procedure that can insure that s/he has considered all the relevant factors and have taken
into account the interests of others as well as her/himself. Thus one has to develop a habit of pursuing justice
or a disposition to be just if one wants to be a just person. What Aristotle means by saying this is that moral
practice is a very important factor in being a moral person. One cannot have a moral character or become a
moral person if one does not constantly practice to be moral, even though one might have correct moral
ideas. This is just like a pianist who would not be a good pianist if she did not practice regularly even though
she knows in her mind how to play the piano. One often has to give up some benefits for morality and one
would not do so or at least would not be willing to do so if one did not know why one should be moral or
why it is good to be moral. This is like taking medicine. Nobody is willing to take medicine not knowing
what is good about it. But one would if one knew that it would promote health. What Aristotle wishes to
bring out is the importance of moral theory that shows the significance or the good of morality. The focus is
on why one should be moral and what the moral principles that one should observe are.

16