BSCS_1A_BGNED02_ETHICS Learning Module 8
Prof. Armina B. Pugay
Republic of the Philippines
CAVITE STATE UNIVERSITY
Naic Campus
Brgy. Bucana, Naic, Cavite
FISHERIES AND MARINE SCIENCE DEPARTMENT
First Semester, AY 2023 – 2024
GNED 02: ETHICS
Bachelor of Science in Computer Science
First Year
MODULE 8
Moral Emotions in Decision Making and Moral Reasoning
I. What the Module is all about?
Module Content
Feelings as obstacles or help in decision making
Importance and disadvantages of feelings in decision making
Seven steps moral reasoning model
Difference between reason and will
II. What are expected to learn?
After the completion of the module, students should be able to:
1.
III. (Pre-Test) Study Guide Questions:
What are Moral Emotions?
Generally speaking, three classes of emotions can be termed moral emotions: emotions that inspire people to care about
the suffering of others (e.g., sympathy), emotions that provoke people to punish others (e.g., anger), and emotions that are,
substantially, punishments upon oneself for violating one’s moral code (e.g., guilt). Some researchers also include a class of
emotions that are produced when one sees the positive moral acts of others, such as praise and a form of moral awe
termed elevation.
Emotions – similar to feelings and intuitions – play a major role in most of the ethical decisions people do. Most people do
not realize how much their emotions direct their moral choices. But experts believe it is difficult to make any important
moral judgments without emotions.
Inner-directed negative emotions like guilt, embarrassment, and shame often motivate people to act ethically.
Outer-directed negative emotions, on the other hand, intend to discipline or punish. For example, people often direct
anger, disgust, or contempt at those who have acted unethically. This prevents others from behaving the same way.
Positive emotions like gratitude and admiration, which people may feel when they see another acting with compassion or
kindness, can inspire people to help others.
Emotions evoked by suffering, such as sympathy and empathy, often lead people to act ethically toward others. Certainly,
empathy is the central moral emotion that most commonly motivates prosocial activity such as altruism, cooperation, and
generosity.
Empathy/Sympathy/Compassion
These emotional processes have long been associated as the very foundation of morality. A interpretation about these
terms should be made: Empathy is used to describe a wide range of experiences. Emotion researchers generally define
empathy as the ability to sense other people's emotions, coupled with the ability to imagine what someone else might be
thinking or feeling (whether happy, sad, or angry, for instance). It is best described as a sort of emotional contagion and, as
such, is not properly an emotion. Sympathy is the fact or power of sharing the feelings of another, especially in sorrow or
trouble; fellow feeling, commiseration and more generally understood as caring for others. But because these terms often
are used interchangeably, some researchers choose to use the term compassion to refer to the emotion of caring for the
suffering of others. This compassion is a sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others and often
motivated by empathic/sympathetic responses to the suffering of others. These emotions seem to appear very early (on
infants cry at the sound of other infants crying more than to equally loud noncrying sounds), are present to some extent in
non-human primates, and are alarmingly lacking in psychopathic individuals. This lack of empathy in psychopaths is most
likely what allows them to hurt others with little guilt—because they do not feel the pain of others, they are not motivated
to compassion for the suffering of others. Having a sympathetic reaction to the suffering of another is also one of the best
predictors of altruistic helping behavior.
Anger and Disgust
Much of morality consists of controlling the behavior of others. As moral codes are produced, consequences for the
violation of those moral codes become necessary. One way in which individuals experience immediate consequences to
others is by emotional displays of disapproval. Anger is generally a response to a sense of interpersonal violation. It is
defined as a strong feeling of being upset or annoyed because of something wrong or bad: the feeling that makes someone
BSCS_1A_BGNED02_ETHICS Learning Module 8
Prof. Armina B. Pugay
want to hurt other people, to shout, etc. Although anger can be provoked across a wide variety of situations, research has
showed that many of these situations involve a feeling of betrayal, unfair treatment, or injustice—concerns that fall directly
in the moral domain. The role of disgust in morality is a little less straightforward. Disgust is a strong feeling of dislike for
something that has a very unpleasant appearance, taste, smell, etc.: annoyance and anger that you feel toward something
because it is not good, fair, appropriate, etc. Even if many individuals story being disgusted by an individual they perceive as
morally blameworthy (e.g., being disgusted at a scam artist who robs the elderly), it is not clear that they are referring to
the same kind of disgust an individual may feel when he or she sees rotting meat or feces (what some researchers term
core disgust). One possibility is that individuals can recruit this core disgust when presented with a morally shady character.
Guilt and Shame
When people violate what they perceive to be a moral rule, they often react with a feeling of guilt or shame. These
emotions are often referred to as the self-conscious emotions. Shame, and its cousin, embarrassment, regulate people’s
behavior when others are present. It is defined as the painful feeling arising from the consciousness of something
dishonorable, improper, ridiculous, etc., done by oneself or another. In non-Western cultures in which the hierarchical
structure of society is of primary (often moral) importance, these emotions especially keep individuals acting in a manner
befitting their lower-status ranking. Guilt, on the other hand, is an inherently interpersonal emotion. It is a feeling of
responsibility or remorse for some offense, crime, wrong, etc., whether real or imagined. It acts as a signal that an
individual may have hurt someone with whom he or she has a relationship. As such, guilt often motivates reparatory
behavior—it only seems to go away once an individual has corrected his or her wrongs.
"It is reason, and not passion, which must guide our deliberations, guide our debate, and guide our decision."
Barbara Jordan
Feelings as Obstacles or Help in Decision Making
Feeling is the perception of events within the body, as defined in psychology, and closely related to emotion. Feeling is
derived from the Middle English verb felen, “to perceive by touch, by palpation.” Generally, Psychologists disagree on the
use of the term feeling. American psychologist R.S. Woodworth defines the problem of feeling and emotion as that of the
individual’s “internal state.” Many psychologists, however, still follow the German philosopher Immanuel Kant in equating
feeling to states of pleasantness and unpleasantness, known in psychology as affect.
At the turn of the 20th century, German psychologists Wilhelm Wundt and Edward Titchener recommended that the
elementary psychological states that make up consciousness, such as sensations, images, and feelings, can be noticed and
analyzed by experimentation.
According to American psychologist William James’s theory of emotion, which conducted that physiological changes go
before emotion. Successive evidence indicates that the theory is fundamentally correct in that there is an internal sensory
basis for feeling. More recent work has shown an interaction between physiological arousal and cognition in determining
emotional expression.
If emotion is in part a perception initiated by bodily responses, it is clearly appropriate to know what these responses are.
The best sole response to this question came from the work of the American physiologist W.B. Cannon, who in a long series
of experiments was able to show that the major emotions include excitation of the sympathetic division of the autonomic
nervous system and that such excitation, because of the diffuse conduction, provides increase to a widespread set of
specific responses of smooth muscles and glands—increase in heart rate, increase in blood pressure, inhibition of peristaltic
movements, increased perspiration, and many others.
Decision making on the other hand, is considered as the cognitive process causing in the selection of a belief or a course of
action among some possible alternative options, it could be either rational or irrational. Decision-making process is a
reasoning process based on beliefs of values, preferences, and opinions of the decision-maker.
A decision making is considered rational when the way of thinking involved a mental process that is, based on optimizing
utility. Rational thinking and decision-making do not utilize for emotions. In reality, emotions are often considered irrational
occurrences that may interfere with reasoning.
Nevertheless, there are current theories and research for both rational decision-making and emotional decision-making
focusing on the important role of emotions in decision-making and the mental process and logic on the important role in
rational decision-making.
According to Loewenstein and Lerner, emotions are divided during decision making into two types: those expecting future
emotions and those immediately experienced while reflecting and planning. Damasio created the somatic marker
hypothesis (SMH), that suggests a mechanism by which emotional processes can guide (or bias) behavior, particularly
decision-making. Pfister and Böhm deem that "the issue of rationality should be based on the validity of emotional
evaluations rather than on formal consistency."
Anticipated (or expected) emotions are not experienced directly but are expectations of how the person will understand
once gains or losses associated with that decision are experienced. A great deal of research has engaged on the risk/return
spectrum that is considered in most decisions. For example, students may expect regret when deciding which section of a
class is best to register for or participants in a weight-loss plan might anticipate the pleasure they will feel if they lose
weight, versus the negative feelings unsuccessful efforts may cause.
Mostly, it is the consideration of incremental losses or gains that creates anticipated emotions in decision-makers, as
opposed to their overall condition. This suggests that a stakeholder who imagines losing a small amount of money will
BSCS_1A_BGNED02_ETHICS Learning Module 8
Prof. Armina B. Pugay
usually focus with disappointment on the lost investment, rather than with pleasure on the overall amount still owned.
Likewise, a weightwatcher who anticipates losing two pounds may imagine feeling pleasure even though those two pounds
are a very small percentage of what needs to be lost overall.
Decision-makers tend to make comparison on possible result of a decision against what could have happened, rather than
to their current situation. For example, game participants who could win Php1000 and end up with nothing base their
disappointment on the loss of the hoped-for prize, rather than on the fact that they have no less money than they had
when they began the game. This process, and the anticipation of such emotion, is referred to as a counterfactual
comparison.
The decision-makers also tend to weight possible outcomes differently based on the amount of delay between the choice
and the outcome. Decisions made with a time delay – intertemporal choice – tend to involve different weights on outcomes
depending on their delay, involving hyperbolic discounting and affective forecasting. These effects are then connected to
anticipated emotions as the decision is being considered.
Immediate emotions are true emotions felt while decision-making, combining cognition with somatic or bodily experienced
components within the autonomic nervous system and outward emotional expressions. These may or may not be
associated to the decision at hand, though; while contemplation of the decision’s consequences may give rise to immediate
emotions, known as anticipatory or integral influences, immediate emotions can also be associated to the existing
environment or the dispositional effect of the person. Although unrelated to the decision under consideration, this type of
emotion can still change the decision-making process as an incidental influence.
The immediate emotions also tend to function differently from anticipated emotions. First, when they are intense, they
tend to negate the probability of the possible outcome; for example, a fear of flying experienced while deciding how to
travel may lead a person to choose driving even though air safety statistics would show air travel to be statistically less likely
to present a danger. The intense emotions can exact a higher influence on the decision than the probabilities under
consideration. Also, immediate emotions can be very sensitive to how stunning the possible outcome is to the decision-
maker. A fear of flying may be increased by the intensity of the mental image of a plane crash may be in the mind of the
decision-maker. How soon an outcome may happen impacts the related immediate emotions: the sooner the approaching
possible outcome, the more intense the emotion associated with that event. Generally, these emotions are real,
experienced emotions, as opposed to those anticipated while thinking about possible outcomes, and as such can very
powerfully impact decision-making.
Antonio Damasio who formulated the somatic marker hypothesis (SMH), suggests a mechanism by which emotional
processes can guide (or bias) behavior, particularly decision-making.
As defined by Damasio, emotions are changes in both body and brain states in response to different stimuli. Physiological
changes (e.g., muscle tone, heart rate, endocrine release, posture, facial expression, etc.) occur in the body and are
transmitted to the brain where they are transformed into an emotion that tells the individual something about the stimulus
that they have met. Across the whole period, emotions and their corresponding bodily change(s) become related with
particular situations and their past outcomes.
When making decisions, these physiological signals (or ‘somatic markers’) and their induced emotion are consciously or
unconsciously related with their past outcomes and bias decision-making towards certain behaviors while preventing
others. For example, when a somatic marker associated with a positive outcome is observed, the person may feel happy
and motivated to connect in that behavior. When a somatic marker associated with the negative outcome is understood,
the person may feel sad and the emotion may act as an internal alarm to notify the individual to avoid a course of action.
These situation-specific somatic states based on, and supported by, past experiences help to guide behavior in favor of
more advantageous choices and therefore are adaptive.
There are two distinct pathways of SMH reactivate somatic marker responses. In the first pathway, emotion can be induced
by the changes in the body that are projected to the brain—called the "body loop". For instance, facing a feared object like
a snake may introduce the fight-or-flight response and cause fear. In the second pathway, cognitive representations of the
emotions can be stimulated in the brain without being directly provoked by a physiological response—called the "as-if body
loop". For instance, imagining an encounter with a snake would initiate a similar flight-or-fight response "as-if" you were in
that particular situation (though perhaps a much weaker one). In other words, the brain can anticipate expected bodily
changes, which allows the individual to react faster to external stimuli without waiting for an event to actually happen.
According to Dunn, "the somatic marker hypothesis suggests that ‘somatic marker’ biasing signals from the body are
characterized and controlled in the emotion circuitry of the brain, mainly the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPFC), to
help regulate decision-making in situations of complexity and uncertainty". Hence, in situations of complexity and
uncertainty, the marker signals permit the brain to recognize the situation and respond quickly.
Classification of how emotions function in decision-making (Pfister and Böhm ,2008)
The four roles played by emotions in this framework are:
1. Providing information:
This comprises both positive and negative emotions that arise directly from the options being considered by the
decision maker, who can then assess choices with this "information." This role is especially likely when the felt
emotion is reducible; that is, easily reduced to a simple comparison (for example, attraction and repulsion), and
unequivocally positive or negative. Pleasure and displeasure make up the spectrum of these emotions.
BSCS_1A_BGNED02_ETHICS Learning Module 8
Prof. Armina B. Pugay
2. Improving speed:
While making a good decision is important, making a quick decision is also important. Thus, emotions and
associated somatic conditions can offer mechanisms for helping a decision maker to decide quickly, especially
when one or more options are potentially dangerous. Hunger, anger, and fear can all induce a speedy decision.
3. Assessing relevance:
Emotions assist decision makers decide whether a certain element of the decision is important to their particular
situations. Each person’s personal history and state(s) of mind guides to a different set of relevant information. The
two such emotions most studied to date are regret and disappointment.
4. Enhancing commitment:
In some aspects, making the decision best for the self may be interpreted "the best" overall. Nevertheless, acting
in the best interests of others is also essential in human civilization, and moral sentiments, or emotions, provide to
help decision makers devote to such a decision rather than being drawn back toward pure self-interest. Emotions
such as guilt and love help decision makers make such commitments.
This framework can help in exploring such concepts as ambivalence, tendencies toward particular types of action, and
sustaining difficult choices over time.
Positive and negative emotions
Research performed by Isen and Patrick set forth the Theory of "Mood Maintenance" which asserts that happy decision-
makers are hesitant to gamble. In other words, happy people choose against gambling since they would not want to
destabilize the happy feeling.
Otherwise, the influence of negative feelings at the time of decision-making was analyzed by Raghunathan and Tuan Pham
(1999). They conducted three experiments in gambling decisions and job selection decisions, where unhappy subjects were
found to choose high-risk/high-reward options unlike anxious subjects who favored low-risk/low-reward options. They
confirmed that "anxiety and sadness give distinct types of information to the decision-maker and prime different goals." It
was discovered that "while anxiety primes an implicit goal of uncertainty reduction, sadness primes an implicit goal of
reward replacement”. Therefore. emotions cannot simply be classified as positive or negative as we need to consider the
consequences of the emotions in ultimate decision-making.
State-dependent remembering
Another crucial factor is the memory of events in decision making. The mood someone has works as "a retrieval cue"
whereby happy feelings make positive materials come to mind which in turn have great impact on the decisions that are
made. The same is true of negative feelings. Bower created the term state-dependent remembering for this phenomenon.
Bower and others said that emotions and feelings cannot be extracted from the human mind. The emotions felt in a specific
situation will be recorded in the emotional memory and can be activated when the person faces a similar situation or has to
make a difficult decision in a short period of time. Often the decision maker is unaware of previous experiences in similar
situations.
Impact
Much research has been conducted on the various impacts of emotion on decision-making. Studies indicate the complexity
and breadth of those impacts. Listed below are some examples of their results.
a. Decision-makers who were made to consider safety concerns that induced negative emotions when deciding
which car to purchase, were more likely to "choose not to choose," or to stick with the status quo.
b. Study participants who experienced "frustrated anger" were more likely to choose a high risk, high reward
option in a lottery – a choice the authors categorize as "self-defeating."
c. "Fearful people made pessimistic judgments of future events whereas angry people made optimistic
judgements."
d. Study participants who had been induced to feel sad were likely to set a lower selling price for an item they
were asked to sell; the researchers suggest that selling the item would bring about a change in the
participants’ circumstances and thus perhaps a positive change in mood.
e. Participants with "normal emotion processing" were engaged in a card-drawing task. When drawing from
"dangerous decks" and consequently experiencing losses and the associated negative emotions, they
subsequently made safer and more lucrative choices. Participants with brain damage that had left them
unable to experience such emotional responses, did not change their behavior in this way.
The Advantages of Expressing Feelings
Relationships will last if every individual involve express their feelings openly. As the saying goes "honesty is the best policy"
is often suggested as the finest approach of dealing with interpersonal relationships. With the absence of honesty, this
cultivates mistrust and insecurity in any relationship, regardless of whether the dishonesty is revealed. Expressing oneself
undoubtedly and calmly will help improve and continue healthy relationships both professionally and personally. Below are
some of the advantages of expressing feelings.
1. Increased Self-Awareness
BSCS_1A_BGNED02_ETHICS Learning Module 8
Prof. Armina B. Pugay
Conveying your emotions is one way of explaining them. An individual who puts feeling into words will be
understood by the listener through his sentiments. Examining the words spoken helps emphasize what is being
felt.
Sharing feelings with others improves a person to become more self-aware. Generally, the listener will
assist in this process by re-framing and replicating what was said as the speaker reveals upon the words and
emotions that were expressed.
2. Improved Relationships
When people expressed their feelings to each other, most likely, they feel an increased closeness.
The listener might be complimented that she was chosen to be the receiver of this information and might offer
some of her own feelings as an act of reciprocity. Examining the words spoken helps emphasize what is being
felt. On the other hand, when a relationship is based merely on superficial dialogue and feelings are never shared,
a lack of camaraderie is apparent, and the relationship will be lacking in depth. Emotions are personal and usually
kept confidential. When shared with someone trustworthy, the trust between parties increases.
[Link] Emotional Well-Being
"Unspoken feelings never die" is a saying that tell us that hiding a resentment without ever telling the
other party of how you feel they mistreated you can increase bitterness. A person must learn how to express
oneself to disclose his emotions and feels a sense of relief and peace of mind. Nevertheless, these feelings must be
expressed in a non-aggressive manner or the impact might be a negative rather than positive one. Another
expression, "getting it off your chest" refers to the suffocating, oppressive, negative feeling of bottled-up emotions.
Expressing these emotions appropriately can be cathartic. If the person carrying these emotions does not have a
trusted friend, a professional therapist will serve the purpose.
4. Physiological Benefits
With emotions, a body and mind connection are experienced. Stress caused by disturbing events in life as
well as pent-up feelings could lead to ulcers, sleeplessness, and headaches or lower the immune system's
resistance to infection. As a consequence, the threat of colds, the flu or even more serious health complications
increase. Doctors often recommend exercise as a healthy stress reducer because exercise releases endorphins in
the brain which lead to a greater sense of well-being. A Psychology Today website quoted Nathaniel Thom, a stress
physiologist, in a New York Times Sunday Magazine article titled "Phys Ed - Can Exercise Moderate Anger?" stating
that that exercise reduces anger. Exercise can therefore allow you to express your feelings without anger, which
will likely lead to a calming effect on your life.
The advantage of using emotions as part of a management styles is to avoid misunderstanding between colleagues or
misunderstanding between employers and employees. Facial expressions that demonstrated by the employees can suggest
their emotions and moods. Harsh criticisms or funny jokes can be prevented before it triggers anger or sadness of another
party. Likewise, if an organization is using emotions as the managing styles, employees can realize everyone personalities
well.
Expectations, attitudes, habits and practices of an employer can clearly prove by emotions. Employees' experience is the
main factors that will prevent them from achieving the same mistakes. Besides that, if positive emotions are being brought
to work, the working environment will become livelier and employees will be satisfied and happy to continue their works.
When everyone in the organization shares positive emotions when greeting their customers, the satisfaction of the
customers will indirectly create loyalty and profit to the company. When the employers happy with the performance of the
employees, incentives might be given to all the employees.
If employers were exaggerating their emotions at the workplace, it may bring disadvantages. The complaint of an employee
or employer can cause conflict in the organization whenever they show disgust or dislike emotions. They also will hurt the
other party’s pride or feelings whenever they express their emotions and feelings to their peers. As emotions can be easily
convey and influence by other factors, the process of decision making might be affected too. Rumors that bring negative
emotions will cause the working environment tense yet unpleasant. Employees might suffer trauma and fear. Then,
problems start to occur, and this will lead to the highest incidence mistake done by the employees. These problems will
lead to bad performance and low productivity of an organization. In addition, this will result high job turnover in the
organization that will hamper smooth operation.
Reason versus Emotion
Morality was customarily believed to be mainly a matter of reasoning. It is for the reason that the Western philosophical
tradition placed such a strong importance on the role of reasoning for appropriate moral judgment, and because emotions
were understood as detrimental to the reasoning process in general, the study of morality focused deeply on the
development of the reasoning ability. Emotions were seen as harmful to the moral process. This may sound unreasonable,
but many emotions develop one’s own self-interest (such as happiness when one succeeds or anger and sadness when one
fails), or bias one toward those individuals who are close to him or her (e.g., you become angrier if someone insults your
mother than if someone insults a stranger’s mother). Because fairness seems to be critical for proper moral judgment,
many thinkers assumed that emotions should be eliminated from the process of moral judgment completely.
However, some influential thinkers stated that human morality seemed to vary deeply on the presence of certain emotions.
Philosophers such as David Hume and Adam Smith were among the first to connect emotions (particularly sympathy) as
forming the foundations of morality. And current research seems to support them: Without certain emotions, moral
concern would not exist.
Moral Reasoning
BSCS_1A_BGNED02_ETHICS Learning Module 8
Prof. Armina B. Pugay
Both philosophers and psychologists explore moral reasoning. Moral reasoning affects critical analysis to specific events to
decide what is right or wrong, and what people ought to act in a particular situation.
A simple day-to-day decision that we are going to do is the same with how we make moral decisions like “Should I lie or say
the truth?” The brain processes in usually the same way.
Moral reasoning normally utilizes logic and moral theories, such as deontology or utilitarianism, to specific situations or
dilemmas. Nevertheless, people are not particularly good at moral reasoning. Certainly, the term moral dumbfounding
describes the fact that people frequently reach strong moral conclusions that they cannot logically defend.
In reality, evidence reveals that the moral principle or theory a person chooses to apply is often, paradoxically, based on
their emotions, not on logic. Their option is frequently influenced by internal biases or outside pressures, such as the self-
serving bias or the desire to conform.
Therefore, while we likely think we approach ethical dilemmas logically and rationally, the truth is our moral reasoning is
frequently influenced by intuitive, emotional reactions.
Moral reasoning is a study in psychology that overlaps with moral philosophy. Starting from a young age, people can make
moral decisions about what is right and wrong; this makes morality fundamental to the human condition. Moral reasoning,
however, is a part of morality that occurs both within and between individuals. Prominent contributors to this theory
include Lawrence Kohlberg and Elliot Turiel. The term is sometimes used in a different sense: reasoning under conditions of
uncertainty, such as those commonly obtained in a court of law. It is this sense that gave rise to the phrase, "To a moral
certainty;"however, this idea is now seldom used outside of charges to juries.
Moral reasoning can be defined as the process through which individuals try to determine the difference between what is
right and wrong by using logic.[3] This is an important and often daily process that people use when trying to do the right
thing. For instance, every day people are faced with the dilemma of whether to lie in a given situation or not. People make
this decision by reasoning the morality of their potential actions, and through weighing their actions against potential
consequences.
A moral choice can be a personal, economic, or ethical one; as described by some ethical code, or regulated by ethical
relationships with others. This branch of psychology is concerned with how these issues are perceived by ordinary people,
and so is the foundation of descriptive ethics. There are many different forms of moral reasoning which often are dictated
by culture. Cultural differences in the high-levels of cognitive function associated with moral reasoning can be observed
through the association of brain networks from various cultures and their moral decision making. These cultural differences
demonstrate the neural basis that cultural influences can have on an individual’s moral reasoning and decision making [4].
Distinctions between theories of moral reasoning can be accounted for by evaluating inferences (which tend to be either
deductive or inductive) based on a given set of premises.
Deductive reasoning ("top-down logic") contrasts with inductive reasoning ("bottom-up logic"): in deductive reasoning, a
conclusion is reached reductively by applying general rules which hold over the entirety of a closed domain of discourse,
narrowing the range under consideration until only the conclusion(s) remains. In deductive reasoning there is no epistemic
uncertainty.[2
Inductive reasoning is a method of reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying some evidence, but not full
assurance, of the truth of the conclusion.[1] It is also described as a method where one's experiences and observations,
including what are learned from others, are synthesized to come up with a general truth.[2] Many dictionaries define
inductive reasoning as the derivation of general principles from specific observations (arguing from specific to general),
although there are many inductive arguments that do not have that form.[3]m
Seven Steps Moral Reasoning Model
Rae suggests the following procedure for making moral decisions - within this his work is not to get you to the “right”
answer but to help you ask the right questions in your ethical deliberation. Rae says his model is free from cultural, ethnic
and religious background biases - though it is consistent with the bible and uses biblical principles, it is not a distinctively
1. Gather the facts
The simplest way of clarifying an ethical dilemma is to make sure the facts are clear. Ask: Do you have all the
facts that are necessary to make a good decision? What do we know? What do we need to know? In this light
it might become clear that the dilemma is not ethical but about communication or strategy.
2. Determine the ethical issues.
Ethical interests are stated in terms of legitimate competing interests or goods. The competing interests are
what creates the dilemma. Moral values and virtues must support the competing interests in order for an
ethical dilemma to exist. If you cannot identify the underlying values/virtues then you do not have an ethical
dilemma. Often people hold these positions strongly and with passion because of the value / virtue beneath
them.
BSCS_1A_BGNED02_ETHICS Learning Module 8
Prof. Armina B. Pugay
3. Determine what virtues / principles have a bearing on the case
In an ethical dilemma certain values and principles are central to the competing positions. Identify these.
Determine if some should be given more weight than others. Ask what the source for the principle is -
constitution, culture, natural law, religious tradition...
4. List the alternatives
Creatively determine possible courses of action for your dilemma. Some will almost immediately be discarded
but generally the more you list the greater potential for coming up with a really good one. It will also help you
come up with a broader selection of [Link].
5. Compare the alternatives with the virtues / principles
This step eliminates alternatives as they are weighed by the moral principles which have a bearing on the case.
Potentially the issue will be resolved here as all alternatives except one are eliminated. Here you must satisfy
all the relevant virtues and values - so at least some of the alternatives will be eliminated (even if you still have
to go on to step 6). Often here you have to weight principles and virtues - make sure you have a good reason
for each weighting.
6. Consider the consequences
If principles have not yielded a clear decision consider the consequences of your alternatives. Take the
alternatives and work out the positive and negative consequences of each. Estimate how beneficial each +ve
and -ve consequence is - some might have greater weight than [Link] 17 May 2012
7. Make a decision
Ethical decisions rarely have pain-free solutions - it might be you have to choose the solution with the least
number of problems / painful consequences. Even when making a “good” decision you might still lose sleep
over it!
Applying the model: A case study This has been adapted from Rae’s original. It is about medical ethics.
67 year old Indian woman diagnosed with a form of cancer which is usually treated by chemotherapy. - at admission she is
fully competent and able to make her own decisions - she knows something is wrong with her and appears fearful and
anxious about what getting well might involve.
She lives with her son and his wife - the family appear happy - the son has taken responsibility for her as her husband has
died - the son translates for her with almost all information needing translating - the son does not want her to know
anything more than the bare minimum about the treatment as he fears she will give up on life and resign herself to dying -
the son is strongly motivated by cultural and family values.
The patient does not know her full diagnosis or the full effects of the chemotherapy - she knows she is sick and treatment
will make her feel sick to her stomach as well as losing her hair You are the doctor - what would you do? Follow the family’s
wishes (based on their culture)? Decide the patient needs to know what is happening - tell her even if it increases her fear
(and alienates you from the family)
1. Gather the facts - go back over the information given and write down all the facts.
2. Determine ethical issues - patient autonomy, including giving consent for treatment versus what a caring family think is
best for the patient. In such a situation nurses are bound by what the doctor decides - yet still they have to solve the
problem of obedience to the doctor with the patients integrity in being able to give informed consent.
3. Determine what values / principles have a bearing on the case - the right of the patient to give informed consent -
chemotherapy is a very invasive treatment. This is recognised by law, the person has a right to control what happens to
their body. Such dignity comes from being made in the image of God.
The obligation of the medical team to act in the patients best interest. They should do good for the patient whenever they
can - to act with compassion (the family will also claim to be acting in compassion)
Respect for the family’s wishes and culture. Humility is the virtue which says the doctors must realise not all they think is
best. How heavily do they respect family / cultural values? The family may think they are taking some of the burden for
their mother by making the decisions and not telling her everything - this caring is highly valued by them - also the law
regarding informed consent must be applied, and nursing staffs obedience to doctors.
4. List the alternatives - attempt to convince the family of the seriousness of the treatment and why she needs to know -
call an ethics committee conference to discus the case and try to convince the family to tell her These two options should
be discussed prior to any further treatment. - override the family’s wishes and tell the patient of her condition and the
treatment.
Continue to follow the family’s wishes, the son continues to translate and she knows nothing more - wait for the patient to
ask questions about treatment and then encourage her to ask very direct questions of her family and doctor (another
translator is required here) - bring in another translator and ask the woman if she wants to know the details of all that is
happening - likely to cause cultural offense to the son.
5. Compare the alternatives with the virtues / principles - initially try to pursue all possibilities of talking with the family and
the doctors trying to get them to disclose the information themselves - if above is unsuccessful you can either withhold or
disclose information to the patient - use another translator and tell the patient (or ask if she wants to know full details of
what is going on - this alternative respect her autonomy)
She can make it clear at this time she wants her son to make the decisions for her - this would satisfy most important
principles / virtues - if she chooses to know then it is her who is challenging the culture, yet she retains her dignity and has
BSCS_1A_BGNED02_ETHICS Learning Module 8
Prof. Armina B. Pugay
full information - if nurses are unhappy with what is happening the most viable option is probably for them to be requested
to be removed from the case.
6. Consider the consequences If you disclose the information directly possible consequences include; - family feel alienated,
cultural values have been violated - family may take patient to another hospital - patient may “give up” - patient might be
happy they are finally being told the truth.
If you continue withholding information possible consequences include; - patient continues to be fearful and anxious about
the treatment - patient finds out somehow and trust is compromised - family are happy cultural values are being respected.
If you ask the patient if she wants to know through another translator, possible consequences include; - family are unhappy
at disrespect for their cultural values - patient gets to speak for herself and make own decisions - she can choose to let her
son continue making the decisions, both law and culture are satisfied here - patient will be relieved as she knows her wishes
have been respected.
7. Make a decision - we have had to think through our ideas of respect for family and culture - how far should we go in
respecting this cultural approach, is the patients best interest compromised, is her dignity as an individual respected? Rae
suggests, “Here it seems the alternative that involves asking the patient if she wants to know the details of her situation
satisfies most of the virtues and values at stake and produces the best balance of consequences too.”
Difference between Reason and Will
The will, Kant says, is the faculty of acting according to a conception of law. When we act, whether or not we achieve what
we intend with our actions is often beyond our control, so the morality of our actions does not depend upon their outcome.
What we can control, however, is the will behind the action. That is, we can will to act according to one law rather than
another. The morality of an action, therefore, must be assessed in terms of the motivation behind it. If two people, Smith
and Jones, perform the same act, from the same conception of the law, but events beyond Smith’s control prevent her from
achieving her goal, Smith is not less praiseworthy for not succeeding. We must consider them on equal moral ground in
terms of the will behind their actions.
The only thing that is good without qualification is the good will, Kant says. All other candidates for an intrinsic good have
problems, Kant argues. Courage, health, and wealth can all be used for ill purposes, Kant argues, and therefore cannot be
intrinsically good. Happiness is not intrinsically good because even being worthy of happiness, Kant says, requires that one
possess a good will. The good will is the only unconditional good despite all encroachments. Misfortune may render
someone incapable of achieving her goals, for instance, but the goodness of her will remains.
Goodness cannot arise from acting on impulse or natural inclination, even if impulse coincides with duty. It can only arise
from conceiving of one’s actions in a certain way. A shopkeeper, Kant says, might do what is in accord with duty and not
overcharge a child. Kant argues, “it is not sufficient to do that which should be morally good that it conform to the law; it
must be done for the sake of the law.” (Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, Akademie pagination 390) There is a
clear moral difference between the shopkeeper that does it for his own advantage to keep from offending other customers
and the shopkeeper who does it from duty and the principle of honesty.(Ibid., 398) Likewise, in another of Kant’s carefully
studied examples, the kind act of the person who overcomes a natural lack of sympathy for other people out of respect for
duty has moral worth, whereas the same kind act of the person who naturally takes pleasure in spreading joy does not. A
person’s moral worth cannot be dependent upon what nature endowed them with accidentally. The selfishly motivated
shopkeeper and the naturally kind person both act on equally subjective and accidental grounds. What matters to morality
is that the actor thinks about their actions in the right manner.
We might be tempted to think that the motivation that makes an action good is having a positive goal–to make people
happy, or to provide some benefit. But that is not the right sort of motive, Kant says. No outcome, should we achieve it, can
be unconditionally good. Fortune can be misused, what we thought would induce benefit might actually bring harm, and
happiness might be undeserved. Hoping to achieve some particular end, no matter how beneficial it may seem, is not
purely and unconditionally good. It is not the effect or even the intended effect that bestows moral character on an action.
All intended effects “could be brought about through other causes and would not require the will of a rational being, while
the highest and unconditional good can be found only in such a will.” (Ibid., 401) It is the possession of a rationally guided
will that adds a moral dimension to one’s acts. So, it is the recognition and appreciation of duty itself that must drive our
actions.
One of the most influential purely penal law theorists of all time was Suárez. He developed a theory on the concepts of
reason and will that Finnis several centuries later would oppose to.
Suárez explained free and deliberate human actions as consisting of a chain of interacting components. He explained that
the human mind was intelligent enough to, by using reason, understand and see a possible outcome in the end of that
chain of actions. Furthermore, Suárez meant that if a person could see that possible ‘good’ outcome of a certain chain of
actions, the situation still required for that person to actively desire that ‘good’ end for himself. Ultimately, that desire was
what Suárez considered as the free ‘will’ of the human mind. The thoughts following that desire (for instance the ability of
an intelligent human mind to consider different outcomes by different choices) were what Suárez considered the ‘reason’.
So far, Suárez agreed with the ideas of St Thomas Aquinas. In contrast to St Thomas Aquinas, Suárez wrote that one’s
decision will start one’s actions. This meant that it was the ‘will’ that lay behind human action and the ‘will’ of a superior
that controlled the political arena. St Thomas Aquinas drew a distinction here. In the process of a persons’ decision-making,
he added a component that he called ‘command’. This ‘command’ he meant stemmed from one’s reason. It would act as a
guideline to how one should act. This ‘command’ could be explained as the result of one’s intelligence that steered one’s
decisions and therefore also one’s actions. The purpose of the ‘command’ was to make one choose an action with the aim
at ‘the good of an end’ and the aim at taking into consideration the appropriateness of the means. These two aims should
be attributed to ‘reason’ rather than the free ‘will’. The ‘command’ however presupposed also the free ‘will’ since one’s
desire for a certain outcome was what steered one’s actions. To sum up what Suárez has stated about the concepts of
BSCS_1A_BGNED02_ETHICS Learning Module 8
Prof. Armina B. Pugay
reason and will and to also see the difference between the ideas of Suárez and St Thomas Aquinas, following will be
mentioned. Suárez and St Thomas Aquinas agreed on the idea that the free ‘will’ of the human mind was reflected in the
desires that humans felt, when assessing between which choices to make in situations that offered several possible
outcomes. They also agreed on the ideas that thoughts following that desire, as for instance the assessment of advantages
and disadvantages of a certain choice, were attributed to reason. In contrast to one another, Suárez believed that it was
the ‘will’ that lay behind human action and the ‘will’ of a superior that controlled the political arena. St Thomas Aquinas
however, added a component to a person’s decision-making, that he called ‘command’. This ‘command’ he meant
stemmed from one’s reason. The ‘command’ was a guideline for peoples’ [Link] in all, reason has from the very
beginning of the traditions of natural law been a central element. Reason has made it possible for humans to understand
the underlying morals that the natural laws consisted of. For Plato, reason was important since it made it possible for the
human mind to understand the Ideas of good and evil and to recognize concrete subjects existing in actual reality.107
Cicero explained reason as a gift for humanity that was given by the Gods. This gift was given to all people so that they
could be able to understand what the natural law was and to enjoy certain rights stemming from that natural law.
St Thomas Aquinas went a step further and explained his view upon reason and God being the same. He also stated that
unmoral laws that were unreasonable were in fact not law at all. During the time of Plato, natural law was an abstract idea
that the human mind could understand by reasoning.
With the works of Grotius natural law developed into a more graspable idea of a set of rules and duties that consisted of
the law of nations.
Furthermore, Suárez presented ideas that related both to the concepts of reason and free will. In his opinion, reason and
will were two different components in different ends of a chain consisting of human actions. Reason represented the
intelligence that human beings possessed. Humans used this intelligence when assessing certain outcomes of different
actions. Free will
was expressed through the desire within humans to choose an outcome that was most desirable for oneself. Suárez stated
that the desire within human beings was steered by their reason. Their reason demanded a certain choice of action and
through that, a certain outcome. In his work, Finnis developed the theories of natural law into becoming a general idea of
what humanity considered being good. This general idea of what was good could be understood by practical reasoning.
V. Module Requirement:
Activity to be done.
Story Telling/Essay type
Sharing experience regarding your decision in relation to their feelings
Here are some of the reminders and questions you can use as guide when doing the Story Telling?Essay Type Activity
First, you can make an essay regarding your emotions such as:
1. What are the activities/ situations that make you
a. Happy
b. Sad
c. Guilty
d. Angry
e. Disgusted
f. Shameful
2. Does your reasoning has an effect n your current emotions or feeling such as those mentioned above.
Have you come up with the decision that is against your will? Explain your answer.
3. Do you think feelings or your emotions can affect your decision making? If Yes or No is your answer.
Explain your answer.
4. In your decision making with a certain situation, do you consider your relationship with the people
involve? Does your decision affect your decision regarding your relationship with one involved in the
situation Elaborate your answer.
5. How do you assess yourself….are you contented or not contented with your life Discuss your answer.
VI. References:
Agdalpen, Renato T. et. al, Ethics: Ako at ang Kagandahang Asal Bilang Isang Filipino. Mindshapers Co., Inc. 2019
Bauzon, Prisciliano T., A Comprehensive Handbook in Ethics of Moral Philosophy., National Bookstore, 2011
Bulaong, Oscar G. et al. Ethics Foundation of Moral Valuation, Rex Book Store Inc. 2018
De Guzman Jens Micah et al. Ethics Principle of Ethical Behavior in Modern Society,Mutya Publishing Co. Inc. 2017.
Frank, R. H. (1988). Passions within reason: The strategic role of the emotions. New York: W. W. Norton.
Haidt, J. (2003). The moral emotions. In R. J. Davidson, K. R. Scherer, & H. H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of affective
sciences (pp. 852-870). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Hoffman, M. L. (1990). Empathy and justice motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 4, 151-172F
emotions#:~:text=Emotions%20%E2%80%93%20that%20is%20to%20say,emotions%20direct%20their%20moral
%20choices.&text=Emotions%20evoked%20by%20suffering%2C%20such,to%20act%20ethically%20toward%20others.
[Link]
BSCS_1A_BGNED02_ETHICS Learning Module 8
Prof. Armina B. Pugay
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]