Ged 107:
Ethics
Chapter 10:
Reason and Impartiality as
Requirements for Ethics
1
MODULE 10
REASON AND IMPARTIALITY AS REQUIREMENTS FOR ETHICS
Introduction
In this module, students will learn the concepts of reason, morality, and impartiality. It will
help them to think rationally what is good and what is bad; and to be just and fair to benefit not
themselves but to benefit the majority. This module gives emphasis on the principle that every
person is equally important and to give equal consideration to the interests of majority. Lastly, it
will help students to develop their logical, rational and analytical thinking.
Learning Objectives
At the end of the topic, students are expected to:
a) Discuss the ethical requirement of reason and impartiality.
b) Discover different occupations where reasons, impartiality, and morality are part of
theirprofessions
c) Apply reason and impartiality on the different societal issues.
d) Develop possible solutions on the current situation of the country.
Reason and Impartiality
Humans have not only feelings but also reason, and reason plays a vital role in Ethics. In
fact, moral truths are truths of reason; that is, a moral judgement is true if it is espoused by better
reasons than the alternatives (De Guzman et al. 2017).
Reason is the ability of the mid to think, understand, and form judgments y a process of
logic. It is an innate and exclusive human ability that utilizes new or existing information as bases
to consciously make sense out of thing while applying logic. It is also associated with thinking,
cognition, and intellect (“Reason and Impartiality as Minimum Requirement for Morality”). In the
article “Kant and Hume on Morality,” Reason and experience are required for determining the
2
likely effects of a given motive or character trait, so reason does play an important role in moral
judgment.
According to De Guzman et al. (2017), reason spells the difference of moral judgments
from the mere expressions of personal preference. If after eating someone says, “I like a sweetcake,”
he is not required to support it with good reasons for that is a statement about his/her personal taste
and nothing more. But in the case of moral judgments, they require backing byreasons. In the
absence of sensible rationale, they are merely capricious and ignorable. Moraldeliberation is a
matter of weighing reasons and being guided by them. In understanding the nature of morality,
considering reasons is indispensable. Truth in Ethics entails being justifiedby good reasons. That
is, the rightful moral decision involves selecting the option that has thepower of reason on its side.
Being defined by good reasons, moral truths are objectives in the sense that they true no
matter what we might want or think. We cannot make an act moral or immoral just by wishing it
to be so, because we cannot merely will that the weight of reason be on its side or against it. And
this also explains why morality is not arbitrary. Reason commends what it commends, regardless
of our feelings, attitudes, opinions, and desires. Since the connection between moral judgments
and reasons is necessary important, then a proposed theory on the nature of moral judgment should
be able to give an account for the relation. In focusing on attitudes and feelings, both Emotivism
and Subjectivism fail to accomplish this important thingDe Guzman et al. 2017).
As stated in the article “Reason and Impartiality as Minimum Requirement for Morality,”
impartiality is manifesting objectivity. It is the quality of being unbiased and objective in creating
moral decision – underscoring that a (morally) impartial person makes moral decisions relative to
the welfare of the majority and not for specific people alone. According to De Guzman et al.
(2017), impartiality involves the idea that each individual’s interest and point of view are equally
important. Also called evenhandedness or fair-mindedness, impartiality is a principle of justice
holding that decisions ought to be based on objective criteria, rather than on the basis of bias,
prejudice, or preferring the benefits to one person over another for improper reasons.
Impartiality in morality requires that we give equal and/or adequate consideration to the
3
interests of all concerned parties. The principles of impartiality assumes that every person,
generally speaking, is equally important; that is, no one is seen as intrinsically more significant
than anyone else. Other ethicists however, suggest that some clarifications is required. From the
impartial standpoint, to say that no one is seen as intrinsically more significant than anyone else,
is not to say that there is no reason whatsoever for which an individual might demand more moral
attention or better treatment than others. Many ethicists supposed that from the impartial point of
view, properly conceived, some persons count as more significant, at least in certain ways. A
virtous and respectable religious leader maybe supposed to be more significant than a mere maid;
so an emergency (say, a building on fire) the decent religious leader ought to be rescued first. The
reason, nonetheless, is not that the religious leader is intrinsically more significant; rather, it is that
he makes greater contribution to the society (De Guzman et al. 2017).
Why are Reason and Impartiality the Minimum Requirements for Morality?
Is someone tells us that a certain action is immoral, we may ask why it is so, and if there is
reasonable answer, we may discard the proposition as absurd. Also if somebody utters that a
particular act is wrong and explains that it is because it does not happen to fits his taste, then we
also do not count his claim as legitimate ethical judgment. Clearly, thus reason is a necessary
requirement for morality (De Guzman et al. 2017).
In the article “Impartiality,” it was stated that the only respect in which morality requires
impartiality is with respect to violating moral rules—for example, those rules prohibiting killing,
causing pain, deceiving, and breaking promises. It is only with regard to these kinds of moral
rules—those that can be formulated as prohibitions—that it is humanly possible to act impartially
with regard to a group large enough to be an appropriate group.
As stated in the article “Reason and Impartiality as Minimum Requirement for Morality,”
Reason and impartiality become the basic prerequisite for morality as one is excepted to be able
to deliver clear, concise, rightful, and appropriate judgments made out of logic and understanding
in an unbiased and unprejudiced manner while considering the general welfare to accurately
concoct moral decisions.
4
Learning Activity
Each group will think 2 occupations or professionals. Using what they had learned from
reason, impartiality, and morality, each group will create a persuasion map and write down all the
facts, examples, and information to back up their reasoning. End your persuasion map with a
conclusion.
Learning Assessment
Make a reaction paper on the following topics based on the principle of reason, impartiality,
and morality. Provide pieces of evidence that will support your viewpoint and develop possible
solutions on the following issues.
1. Covid-19 response of Department of Health.
2. Alleged corruption and anomalies at PhilHeallth.
3. Passage of Anti-Terrorism Law
4. ABS-CBN franchise renewal
5. NCR and CALABARZON were under Modified ECQ again
Learning References
• Kant and Hume on Morality (2018) Accessed August 9,
2020[Link]
• Reason and Impartiality as Minimum Requirement for Morality. Accessed August 9,
2020[Link]
• De Guzman, J. M., Tesico, M. D., & Paras, W. D. (2017). Ethics Principles of Ethical
Behavior in Modern Society. Malabon City: Mutya Publishing House, Inc.
• Impartiality (2020). Accessed August 9, 2020
• [Link]
maps/impartiality