Module 3: The Act

Topic 1: Feelings and Ethical Decision-Making

I. Learning Outcome

Upon completion of this topic, the student must be able to:

1. explain the relationship between feelings and ethical judgments; and

2. evaluate feelings as both obstacles and useful to making right decisions.

II. Learning Contents

Introduction

Can feelings of happiness, surprise, interest and joy affect our actions to do
what is good? While anger, disgust, contempt, fear, shame, sadness, or self-
hostility greatly influence our actions to do what is bad? Should these positive
subjective feelings matter when we decide to do the right thing? Should we
suppress negative ones instead as they might lead us to wrong decisions?

Feelings and intuitions or what we call as ―moral emotions‖ (n.d.) play a major
role in most of the ethical decisions people make. Most people do not realize how
much their emotions direct their moral choices. Experts think it is impossible to
make any important moral judgments without emotions. They are regarded as
instinctive and trained response to moral dilemmas.

There are two related models in ethics that are exclusively based on feelings.
The first one is ethical subjectivism which holds that truth or falsity of ethical
propositions is dependent on the feelings, attitudes, or standards of a person or
group of persons. Since it is based only on feelings, it is biased and contradicts
the common understanding that morality is about objective facts. For example, a
gay from the parlor passes in front of a group of freshmen nearby and one of
them smirked: ―homosexuality is wrong If the student could not even justify his
moral judgment and made that remark out of feelings, then he is both ignorant
and biased. The second is emotivism which is a naïve version of ethical
subjectivism. This version says that a moral belief is true if it is held with sincerity
and conviction. To say that an act is right, or a person is good, is merely to
emote, just to express emotions. This makes nonsense of beliefs. Is it not that a
belief is something that is either true or false, but not both? No one ‘s feelings are
more justified than another ‘s, assuming they are compatible with any relevant
factual information (Martin, 2007: 5- 6). Feelings cannot be solely relied upon but
reason and feelings may complement each other. Feelings can fuel the
accomplishment of goals. They motivate us to act morally. Traditionally, ethical

34
decision-making process has been understood as an exclusively mental process;
that our feelings have nothing to do with matters of right or wrong and good or
bad, precisely because our emotions are very unstable. Although most existing
researches emphasize the mental elements of decision-making, there are
evidences to support the idea that emotion is also a necessary component
leading to ethical decisions and ethical behavior. The arousal of emotion influences
moral reflection and ultimately moral behavior. Of course, there are other factors also
aside from feelings. Peer influence among college students, for example, is a
stronger determinant of ethical behavior than individual affective reactions. There
is a peer-pressure that an individual seems to be more likely to engage in ethical
behavior when his/her peers also behave ethically (Bratton, 2004; De Guzman,
et al., 2018).

Inner-directed negative emotions like guilt, embarrassment, and shame often

motivate people to act ethically. Outer-directed negative emotions, on the other
hand, aim to discipline or punish. For example, people often direct anger,
disgust, or contempt at those who have acted unethically. This discourages
others from behaving the same way. Positive emotions like gratitude and
admiration, which people may feel when they see someone acting with
compassion or kindness, can prompt people to help others too. Emotions evoked
by suffering, such as sympathy and empathy, often lead people to act ethically
toward others. Indeed, empathy is the central moral emotion that most commonly
motivates prosocial activity such as altruism, cooperation, and generosity. So,
while we may believe that our moral decisions are influenced most by our
philosophy or religious values, in truth our emotions play a significant role in our
ethical decision-making (Lerner, et al., 2014;
―Moral Emotions‖ (n.d.)).

Activity 1: Form a group of 5 members. Discuss how you think feelings can be
obstacles in making the right decisions and give 5 examples to prove your point.
Discuss how you think feelings can help in making the right decisions and give 5
examples to prove your point to be put in a yellow paper.

III. Enrichment Activities

1. Situation Analysis: Search for a situation that you think involves ethical
subjectivism and emotivism. Evaluate the situation by pointing out how
both ethical models are fitted.

2. Essay: Are ethical subjectivism and emotivism plausible for standards of

morality? Justify your answer.

_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________

35
 _____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Topic 2: Reason and Impartiality as Minimum
Requirements for Morality
I. Learning Objectives:

Upon completion of this topic, the student must be able to:

1. explain reason and impartiality as minimum requirements for morality;

2. evaluate a moral dilemma using the 7 step moral reasoning model.

II. Learning Contents

Introduction

The Greek philosopher Aristotle regarded that human beings have a rational
soul that makes us different with that of animals and plants. Rationality (n.d.) is
the capability for logical thought with the ability to reason towards sound
conclusions based on facts and evidence, draw inferences from situations and
circumstances, and make sound well-reasoned judgments based on factual
information. Plants and animals are incapable of complex reasoning and
introspection, much more so in distinguishing good from bad and right from
wrong. A person is called ―rational or reasonable‖ (Korsgaard, n.d.) when his
beliefs and actions conform to the dictates of those principles, or when he is
subjectively guided by them. Reason is also identified with the capacity that
enables us to identify ―reasons, the particular considerations that count in favor
of belief or action. Since human beings are rational, they have―freewill to strive
for perfection‖ (n.d.). By achieving this fulfillment and well-rounded development,
they would somehow attain happiness. It follows that in order to be ethical; an
individual should decide on actions that properly express his rationality.

Moral judgments must be backed by the best arguments or reasons out

there, not only good reasons or better judgments. Our decisions must be guided
as much as possible by reason. The morally right thing to do is always the thing
best supported by the arguments. Morality requires impartiality with regard to
those moral agents affected by a violation of a moral rule. Morality requires the
impartial consideration of each individual's interests. For example, being partial
toward friends is not morally allowed. Impartiality (fair-mindedness) is a principle
of justice holding that decisions should be based on objective criteria, rather than
on the basis of bias, self-interest, prejudice, or preferring the benefit to one
person over another for improper reasons. Other elements of impartiality are
accuracy, fairness, balance, context, and no conflicts or prejudgments. The
respect for truth at all costs is necessary (Khatami, 2009; Rachels, 2018).

The minimum conception of morality is: Morality is the effort to guide one ‘s

36
conduct by reason – that is, to do what there are the best reasons for doing –
while giving equal weight to the interest of each individual affected by one ‘s
decision (Rachels, 2018).

There are several models of ethical decision making and action. Powers and
Vogel (1980) have identified six aspects that affect and are included into moral
reasoning and decision making: (1) moral imagination; (2) moral identification; (3)
moral evaluation; (4) tolerating moral disagreement and ambiguity; (5) integration of
moral competence with other competencies; (6) a sense of moral obligation and
moral motivation. Rest (1994) proposes that moral decision-making involves four
psychological processes: moral sensitivity, moral judgment, moral
motivation/intention, and moral character/action.

Before anything else, one must recognize that there is an ethical issue.
Could a decision or situation be damaging to someone or to some group? Is this
issue more about that what is legal or what is most efficient? If so, how? The
decision-making process could be usefully demonstrated in a Seven Step-wise
Model of Scott Rae (2009) presented below.

Situation – "Please Don't Tell!"

A twenty-year-old Hispanic male was brought to a hospital emergency

room, having suffered abdominal injuries due to gunshot wounds obtained in
gang violence. He had no medical insurance, and his stay in the hospital was
somewhat shorter than expected due to his good recovery. Physicians attending
to him felt that he could complete his recovery at home just as easily as in the
hospital and he was released after only a few days in the hospital.

During his stay in the hospital, the patient admitted to his primary
physician that he was HIV positive, having contracted the virus that causes AIDS.
This was confirmed by a blood test administered while he was hospitalized.
When he was discharged from the hospital, the physician recommended that a
professional nurse visit him regularly at home in order to change the bandages
on his still substantial wounds and to insure that an infection did not develop.

Since he had no health insurance he was dependent on Medicaid, a

government program that pays for necessary medical care for those who cannot
afford it. However, Medicaid refused to pay for home nursing care since there
was someone already in the home who was capable of providing the necessary
care. That person was the patient's twenty-two-year-old sister, who was willing to
take care of her brother until he was fully recovered. Their mother had died years
ago and the sister was accustomed to providing care for her younger siblings.
The patient had no objection to his sister providing this care, but he insisted that
she not be told that he had tested HIV positive. Though he had always had a
good relationship with his sister, she did not know that he was an active
homosexual. His even greater fear was that his father would hear of his

37
homosexual orientation and lifestyle. Homosexuality is generally looked upon
with extreme disfavor among Hispanics.

The patient's physician is bound by his code of ethics that places a very
high priority on keeping confidentiality. That is, information about someone's
medical condition that he or she does not want known cannot be divulged by the
physician. Some would argue that the responsibility of confidentiality is even
greater with HIV/AIDS since disclosure of someone's homosexuality normally
carries devastating personal consequences for the individual who is forced "out
of the closet." On the other hand, the patient's sister is putting herself at risk by
providing
nursing care for him. Doesn't she have a right to know the risks to which
she is subjecting herself, especially since she willingly volunteered to take care of
her brother?

If you were the physician, what would you do in this case? Would you
breach the norm of confidentiality to protect the patient's sister, or would you
keep confidentiality in order to protect the patient from harm that would come to
him from his other family members, especially his father?

Perhaps as good a question as "what would you do" in this situation is the
question, "how would you decide what to do" in this situation? The process of
making a moral decision can be as important as the decision itself, and many
ethical decisions that people encounter are so complex that it is easy to exhaust
oneself talking around the problem without actually making any progress toward
resolving it. The response to many moral dilemmas is "where do I start?' and the
person who is faced with these decisions often needs direction that will enable
him or her to move constructively toward resolution and "see the forest for the
trees."

In order to adequately address the ethical dilemmas that people encounter

regularly, the following is a model that can be used to insure that all the
necessary bases are covered. This is not a formula that will automatically
generate the "right" answer to an ethical problem. Rather it is a guideline that is
designed to make sure that all the right questions are being asked in the process
of ethical deliberation.
Given the ethnic and religious diversity of our society, it is important that
the model used for making ethical decisions have "room" in it to accommodate a
whole host of different moral and ethical perspectives. This model is not tied to
any one particular perspective, but can be used comfortably with a variety of
cultural, ethnic and religious backgrounds. This is not a distinctively Christian
model, though it is consistent with the Scripture and any Christian can use
Biblical principles in utilizing this model. Take note though that what makes many
moral dilemmas so difficult is that the Scripture does not speak to the issue as
clearly as one would prefer because Scripture has not directly addressed the
issue. More general principles can be brought to bear on the issue at hand.
However, in these instances, there is often disagreement about which Biblical

38
principles are applicable to the specific issue under discussion. For example, in
Case 1 (Please Don't Tell) the physician could invoke the Biblical principle of
compassion toward his patient in refusing to disclose information that would harm
him. But at the same time, he could invoke the same principle of compassion
toward the sister in protecting her from the risk of medical harm. It is not clear
that appeal to principles alone will conclusively resolve this case. Thus, to insist
that all ethical dilemmas are resolved simply by appeal to Biblical principles
seems to oversimplify the case. Certainly, many moral questions are resolved
conclusively by appeal to Scripture. But there are other cases in which that does
not happen. That is not to say that Scripture is not sufficient for the believer ‘s
spiritual life, but that the special revelation of Scripture is often supplemented by
the general revelation of God outside Scripture. This model makes room for both
general and special revelation, and gives each a place in helping to resolve the
difficult moral dilemmas facing people today.

1. Gather the Facts

Frequently ethical dilemmas can be resolved simply by clarifying the facts of the
case in question. In those cases that prove to be more difficult, gathering the
facts is the essential first step prior to any ethical analysis and reflection on the
case. In analyzing a case, we want to know the available facts at hand as well as
any facts currently not known but that need to be ascertained. Thus one is asking
not only "what do we know?" but also "what do we need to know?" in order to
make an intelligent ethical decision.

2. Determine the Ethical Issues

The ethical issue(s) are stated in terms of competing interests. It's these
conflicting interests that actually make for an ethical dilemma. The issues should
be presented in a vs. format in order to reflect the interests that are
colliding in a particular ethical dilemma. For example, many ethical decisions,
especially at the end of a patient's life can be stated in terms of patient autonomy
(or the right of the individual to make his or her own decisions about medical
care) vs. the sanctity of life (or the duty to preserve life). In Case #1 above, the
interests of the patient in having the physician keep confidentiality conflict with
the interests of his sister in being protected from the risk of contracting the HIV
virus.

3. What Principles have a bearing on the Case?

In any ethical dilemma, there are certain moral values or principles that are
central to the competing positions being taken. It is critical to identify these
principles, and in some cases, to determine whether some principles are to be
weighted more heavily than others. Clearly Biblical principles will be weighted the
most heavily. There may be other principles that speak to the case that may
come from other sources. There may be Constitutional principles or principles
drawn from natural law that supplement the Biblical principles that come into play
here.

39
4. List the Alternatives
Part of the creative thinking involved in resolving an ethical dilemma involves
coming up with various alternative courses of action. Though there will be some
alternatives which you will rule out without much thought, in general, the more
alternatives that are listed, the better the chance that your list will include some
high quality ones. In addition, you may come up with some very creative
alternatives that you had not considered before.

5. Compare the Alternatives with the Principles

At this point, the task is one of eliminating alternatives according to the moral
principles that have a bearing on the case. In many instances, the case will be
resolved at this point, since the principles will eliminate all alternatives except
one. In fact, the purpose of this comparison is to see if there is a clear decision
that can be made without further deliberation. If a clear decision is not
forthcoming, then the next part in the model must be considered. At the least,
some of the alternatives may be eliminated by this step of comparison.

6. Weigh the Consequences

If the principles do not yield 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 beneficial than others
and some negative consequences are more detrimental than others.

7. Make a Decision
Deliberation cannot go on forever. At some point, a decision must be
made. Realize that one common element to ethical dilemmas is that there are
no easy and painless solutions to them. Frequently, the decision that is made is
one that involves the least number of problems or negative consequences, not
one that is devoid of them.

Back to the situation – Please Don't Tell!

Using the model, let's return to the case at hand. This will illustrate
how the model is used and clarify exactly what is meant by each of the
elements in the model.

7. Gather the Facts: The relevant facts in this case are as follows:

o The patient is a young man, infected with HIV and an active homosexual.
o He suffered fairly severe abdominal wounds but is recovering well.
o Homosexuality is looked down upon in Hispanic communities.
o The patient has insisted that his physician maintain confidentiality about his
HIV status.
o The patient is afraid of rejection by his father if his homosexuality is discovered,
an understandable fear given the way homosexuality is viewed in the
Hispanic community.

40
 o He was wounded by gunfire in gang violence. It is not clear but 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.
o He is uninsured and cannot afford home nursing care by a professional.
o Medicaid refuses to pay for professional home nursing care.
o 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.
o The patient has specifically requested that his sister not be told of his HIV
status.
 She does not know that he is an active homosexual.
o The patient's sister would be changing fairly sizable wound dressings for
her brother and 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.

8. Determine the Ethical issue(s)

The competing interests in this case are those of the sister who will
provide the care and the patient who will receive it. Both have interests in
being protected from harm. The patient fears being harmed in a
psycho-social way if his homosexuality and HIV status were discovered.
Thus he has put the physician in a difficult situation by demanding that his
right to confidentiality be kept. Though she does not know it, his sister fears
medical harm due to the risk of contracting the HIV virus from contact with her
brother's blood. This could be stated as a conflict between confidentiality for the
patient vs. the right to know the patient's condition for his sister due to the risk
she would be taking in giving him nursing care. The conflict could be
summarized by the need for patient confidentiality vs. the duty to warn the sister
of risk of harm.

What Principles have a bearing on the Case?

Two moral principles that speak to this case come out of the way in which the
ethical issue is stated. This case revolves around a conflict of rights, a conflict of
duties that the physician has toward his patient and toward the sister. He is
called to exercise compassion toward both, but what compassion (or the duty to
"do no harm") demands depends on which individual in the case is in view. Thus
two principles are paramount. First is the widely recognized principle that patients
have a right to have their medical information kept confidential, particularly the
information that could be used to harm them if it were disclosed. But a second
principle that comes into play is the duty of the physician to warn interested
parties other than the patient if they are at risk of imminent and substantial harm.
One of the difficult aspects of any ethical decision is knowing what weight to give
the principles that are relevant to the case. Here, the principle of confidentiality is
considered virtually sacred in the medical profession and most physicians will

41
argue that it is necessary to keep confidentiality if patients are to trust their
physicians and continue coming for treatment. But confidentiality is often
considered subordinate to the duty to warn someone who will likely be harmed if
that information is not disclosed. For example, if a psychologist believes that his
patient will kill his wife, or beat her severely, he has a moral obligation to inform
the wife that she is in danger from her husband. The duty to warn someone from
imminent and severe harm is usually considered a more heavily weighted
principle than confidentiality in cases like these.

The key question here in weighting the principles of confidentiality and the duty to
warn (both fulfilling the Biblical notion of compassion toward those in need of it) is
the degree of risk that the patient's sister is taking by providing nursing care for
her brother. If the risk is not substantial, then that weights confidentiality a bit
more heavily. But if the risk is significant, then the duty to warn is the more
heavily weighted principle. This is particularly so given the fact that the sister has
volunteered to perform a very self-sacrificing service for her brother. Some would
argue that her altruism is an additional factor that weights the duty to warn
principle more heavily. Others would suggest that his contracting HIV is an
example of "reaping what one sows," and that minimizes consideration of the
patient's desire for confidentiality. An additional factor that should be figured into
the deliberation is that the risk to the patient, though it may have a higher
probability of happening, is not as severe as the risk to the sister. After all, if the
worst case scenario happened to the patient, his father would disown him and
the gang would throw him out (though their action could be more severe than
that). He would recover from all of that. But if his sister contracted HIV, she would
not recover from that. Though the probability of the worst case scenario is higher
for the patient, the results of the worst case are clearly higher for the sister.

1. List the Alternatives

In this case, there are a number of viable alternatives that involve

compromise on either the patient's part or his sister's. However, there are two
alternatives that do not involve compromise and they each reflect a weighting of
the principles.
One alternative would be to tell the sister that her brother is HIV positive.
This alternative comes out of taking the duty to warn principle as higher
priority. On the other hand, a second alternative is to refuse to tell her that
information, upholding the patient's request for confidentiality and taking the
confidentiality principle as the one that carries the most weight. However, there
are other alternatives. For example, the physician could warn the patient's
sister in general terms about taking appropriate precautions for caring for
these types of wounds. She is to wear gloves and even a mask at all times
when handling the bandages. Should she get any blood on her clothes or
body, she is to wash immediately with a disinfectant soap. In other words, she
is to take universal precautions that any medical professional routinely takes in
caring for patients. A further alternative is to request that the patient inform his
sister of his condition. He could then request that she not tell any other family

42
member or any or his friends. If he refused, then the next step might be to say to
him in effect, "If you don't tell her, I will."

2. Compare Alternatives with Principles

In many cases, the principles resolve the case. Depending on how

one assesses the relative weight of the principles, which may be the case here.
In fact, it may be that the alternative of encouraging universal precautions for the
sister but not telling her why, comes very close to satisfying all the relevant
principles. But certainly there are questions about the adequacy of those
precautions. Will she follow them, or treat them casually? However, assume
for the moment that appeal to principles does not resolve the dilemma.

3. Assess the Consequences

Here the task is to take the viable alternatives that attempt to predict
what the likely consequences (both positive and negative) of each would be. In
addition, one should try to estimate roughly how beneficial are the positive
consequences and how severe the negative ones are, since some
consequences are clearly more substantial than others.

In m a n y cases, w h e n two o p p o s i n g alternatives are

presented, the consequences of one are the mirror image of the other. This
is the case here with the alternatives of telling that sister, or refusing to tell her
of her brother's HIV status.

In the first alternative, that of telling the sister (or insisting that the patient
tells his sister), the likely consequences include the following:

The sister would be properly warned about the risks of taking care of
her brother, minimizing the risk of her contracting HIV, and saving her from
the risk of developing a fatal illness. The brother's HIV status would be out in
the open, leaving family and gang friends to draw their own conclusions
about his homosexuality. Should they draw the right conclusion, which is
likely, he suffers significant psycho-social harm from his gang members, and
possibly (though not certainly) from his family.

Trust with the physician and the patient suffers and he may refuse to see that
physician, or any other one again until a dire medical emergency. This would be
unfortunate since due to his HIV status, he will need on going medical care. But
if the physician refuses to disclose the information, the following may be
expected as the likely consequences:

The sister would not know about the risks she is taking, making her vulnerable to
contracting an infection for which there is no cure. The degree of risk that she is
taking is open to debate, but some would argue that if the degree of risk is any

43
more than minimal, that justifies warning her since the virus produces a fatal
disease.

The patient's HIV status is a well-kept secret, as his homosexuality. But it is not
likely that either his HIV status or his homosexuality can be kept a secret
forever, since as HIV develops into full-blown AIDS, both are likely to come out
at some point in the future.

Trust between the physician and patient is maintained. If the alternative of telling
the sister to take general precautions is taken, the following are the likely
consequences: She may exercise appropriate caution in taking care of her
brother, but she may not. She may treat the precautions casually and
unknowingly put herself at risk. If the physician tells her about the precautions in
very strong terms to insure her compliance with them, that may start her asking
questions about why the doctor was so insistent on her following his
precautions. In fact, one of the motives of the physician might be to nudge her
toward asking some of those questions, of her brother, to further minimize the
risk of contracting HIV.

In general, the patient's HIV status and homosexual orientation are kept secret,
and confidentiality is honored, but the question of how long it will remain a secret
is unknown and it is likely that it will become known eventually. Trust with the
physician and patient is maintained. However, if the sister is nudged to ask her
brother some pressing questions about why these precautions are so important,
he may conclude that the physician has prompted his sister to ask these
questions, leaving him feeling betrayed.

7. Make a Decision

What would you decide in this case? Which principles are the weightiest? Are
there others that you would include? Which alternatives are the most viable? Are
there others that you would suggest? Which consequences seem to you the
most severe? Are there others that you think will occur? It is important to realize
that at some point you must stop deliberating and make a decision, as
uncomfortable as that may be.

Student Activity 1: Form a group with 5 members in each group. Analyze the
situation of Rebecca using the 7-step ethical decision model. Place your output in
a word document and submit online.

You are a resident assistant in a co-ed residence hall. One evening, a first
year female resident named Rebecca comes to your apartment. She tells you
that she had been grabbed on campus by an unidentified male who released her
when she screamed. Rebecca explains that she tells you only because her best
friend convinced her to approach you. She did not want to report the incident to

44
the campus police, and, in fact, states she wants the information to stop at your
level.

After speaking with Rebecca for about an hour, you convince her to inform the
police. She reluctantly details the same story to the police. Over the next several
days, you see Rebecca a number of times. The police investigation has
intensified and the information has been released to the student newspaper as a
public safety announcement. Rebecca becomes more distraught and withdrawn.
You convince her to visit a counsellor. She agrees, only if you accompany her.

One day during an emotional and vague conversation, you and Rebecca are
discussing the assault. You feel there is more to the story then you are being
told. You assure Rebecca that anything she reveals to you will remain
confidential. She offers nothing more. Over the next few days, Rebecca begins to
respond to your continued prodding and becomes more comfortable with you.

A week later, Rebecca comes to you with the "whole story." She had been
drugged, detained and raped by another student (also a resident of your building)
at a campus party. Rebecca is clearly traumatized by sharing her story with you.
She repeatedly emphasizes her desire for confidentiality. You convince Rebecca
to tell campus police the whole story, but she refuses to reveal to them the
assailant. The police finally had the details of the assault, but they had no clues
to aid in their investigation. Rebecca is the only person who knows the identity of
the rapist, and only you know that the individual resides in your building. What do
you do?

III. Enrichment Activities

1. Alam natin na tayo ay tao pero kadalasan ay hindi natin alam

paanomagpakatao. Make a reaction on this statement reflecting the idea
on reason and impartiality as minimum requirements for morality.

___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________

2. Is gender equality justifiable under the concepts of reason and

impartiality? Justify your answer.

___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________

45
 ___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________

Topic 3: Moral Courage

I. Learning Objectives:

1. explain the significance of moral courage in ethical decision-making.

2. value the moral courage and ethical decision making

II. Learning Contents:

Reason, Will and Moral Courage in Ethics

Reason in ethics is the application of critical analysis to specific events to

determine what is right or wrong and what people ought to do in a particular
situation while will is the faculty of the mind that chooses a desire among the
different desires present. Will is guided by reason, where, as determined by
reason, action is performed according to rational requirements. The best ethical
decision which is argued in the most rational way is still incomplete without its
execution. That is why moral courage is important and the will enables the
person to act deliberately and courageously (Gambrell, 2015; Rowan, 2015).

Osswald, S. et al. (2010) describes moral courage as a prosocial behavior with

high social costs and no (or rare) direct rewards for the person. There are
situations that demand a morally courageous intervention: instances of injustice
happen, human rights are violated, persons are treated unfairly and in a
degrading manner, or nature and cultural assets are in danger. These situations
are about discrimination against foreigners or other minorities, violence and
aggression against weaker individuals, sexual harassment or abuse, mobbing, or
illegal business practices.

Lopez, O‘Byrne, and Petersen (2003) defined moral courage as ―the expression
of personal views and values in the face of dissension and rejection‖ (p. 187) and
―when an individual stands up to someone with power over him or her (e.g.,
boss) for the greater good‖ (p. 187). Thus, often an imbalance of power exists
with a disadvantage on the side of the person who acts morally courageously.
Moral courage situations (compared with other situations that demand prosocial
behavior) are also characterized by a specific social constellation: There are not
only one or more victims but also one or more perpetrators who discriminate

46
against the victim(s) or act unfairly or threateningly, and the potential helper has
to deal with the perpetrators to act prosocially. Most of the social costs moral
courage entails emanate from the confrontation with the perpetrators.
Greitemeyer, Fischer, Kastenmueller, and Frey (2006) defined moral courage as
brave behavior accompanied by anger and indignation, which intends 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.

Reason in Ethics

Reason is the human capacity to think logically, analyze situations, evaluate

evidence, and distinguish right from wrong. It allows individuals to make informed
and rational moral judgments rather than acting solely on emotions, impulses, or
personal interests.

In ethics, reason helps people understand moral principles, evaluate the

consequences of actions, and determine the most ethical course of action.
According to the philosopher Aristotle, reason is the highest human faculty
because it enables people to pursue virtue and achieve the good life
(eudaimonia). Similarly, Immanuel Kant argued that moral actions should be
guided by reason and universal moral principles rather than personal desires.

Importance of Reason in Ethical Decision-Making

Reason enables individuals to:

 Analyze ethical dilemmas objectively.
 Distinguish facts from opinions.
 Weigh the consequences of different actions.
 Apply ethical principles consistently.
 Avoid decisions based solely on emotions or prejudice.
 Promote fairness, justice, and impartiality.

Reason allows people to ask questions such as:

 Is this action fair?
 Who will benefit or be harmed?
 Does this respect the rights of others?
 Would it be acceptable if everyone acted this way?

Example
A student discovers that the answer key for an examination has been
accidentally left on the teacher's desk. Through reason, the student understands
that cheating may improve the exam score temporarily but violates honesty and
fairness. After considering the consequences, the student chooses not to look at
the answers.

47
Will in Ethics

Will refers to the human ability to make choices freely and intentionally. It is the
power that enables individuals to act according to what reason recognizes as
morally right.
Reason identifies the good, but the will chooses whether or not to pursue it.
Ethics assumes that individuals possess free will, making them morally
responsible for their actions.

Importance of Will
A strong will enables people to:

 Control impulses and temptations.

 Choose ethical actions despite personal sacrifice.
 Remain committed to moral principles.
 Develop self-discipline and responsibility.
 Resist peer pressure and corruption.
Without a firm will, individuals may know what is right but fail to do it.

Relationship Between Reason and Will

Reason and will complement one another.

 Reason tells us what is right.

 Will enables us to choose and perform what is right.

A person may recognize that lying is wrong through reason, but it is the will that
determines whether the person tells the truth.

Example
An employee discovers financial irregularities within the company. Reason tells
the employee that fraud is unethical. The will enables the employee to refuse
participation in the fraud despite the possibility of losing a promotion.

Moral Courage in Ethics

Moral courage is the strength to act according to ethical principles even when
doing so involves risk, fear, criticism, or personal loss.
It requires individuals to stand for what is right despite pressure from others.
Moral courage differs from physical courage because it involves defending moral
values rather than facing physical danger.

Characteristics of Moral Courage

A morally courageous person demonstrates:

 Honesty
 Integrity

48
  Responsibility
 Perseverance
 Self-sacrifice
 Commitment to justice
 Respect for human dignity
 Accountability

Importance of Moral Courage

Moral courage enables individuals to:

 Report unethical behavior.

 Defend victims of injustice.
 Resist corruption.
 Admit mistakes.
 Speak the truth despite opposition.
 Protect the rights of others.

Without moral courage, ethical knowledge often remains only an idea rather than
becoming action.

Example
A government employee discovers corruption involving public funds. Although
exposing the wrongdoing may result in threats or loss of employment, the
employee reports the misconduct because protecting public resources is morally
right.

Activity 1 : Form a group of 5 members. Read the situation below and discuss
how you think you can help Jonas act with moral courage.

Jonas has just renewed his contract as a janitor with a job order status at a well-
known college in his province. He is just a senior high school graduate and has a
five month old baby to take care of. His peers respected him and described him
as an honest and hardworking person with strong work values. After almost four
semesters, he has noted a behavior in the work setting that concerned him and
conflicted with his ethical principles. He has been observing his supervisor
falsifying daily time records of fellow administrative aides and very lax
inspections all around the campus. Although all janitors have their own territories
to clean and they work independently, there are instances that they all work
together in improving the landscapes of the campus. When Jonas brought this
behavior to the attention of some senior janitors, they explained that they
experienced retaliation if they even mentioned this misconduct. Anyway, all of
them are benefiting from it. After much pondering, Jonas felt that he has an
ethical responsibility to take action and bring this matter to the attention of the
administration. As soon as someone quietly brought this to the supervisor, the
supervisor immediately changed the work schedule of Jonas unfairly and added
more loads of work for him. As a result, he has to work on some Saturdays just to

49
finish his job. The supervisor also set unreasonable deadlines, and discouraged
him opportunities for social gatherings among them after office hours. What will
he do?

III. Enrichment Activities

Student Activity 2: Form a group with 5 members in each group. Choose one of
the topics below, make a script or a case, and make a good rational moral
decision.
Please see attach rubric. (50 points)

1. Injustice
2. Violation Human Rights
3. Unfair Treatment (and in degrading manner)
4. Illegal business practice
5. Nature and cultural assets are in danger.

Essay:

1. Write a reflection paper about this quote: ―Standing for what is right is a
lonesome journey.

___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________

2. Write a reflection paper about this quote: ―It is better to be kind than to
be right?

____________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________

50
51