CITIZENSHIP AND MORAL EDUCATION (MCIE1012)

Chapter Three: Ethical Decision Making and Moral Judgments

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

1.2. Chapter Objectives

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

1.3. How Can We Make Ethical Decisions And Actions?

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

There are things which we consider good or desirable for their result-for what they lead to.
There are also things which we consider good not because of what they lead to but because of
what they are in themselves: this are considered as worth having or perusing not merely as

1|Page
 CITIZENSHIP AND MORAL EDUCATION (MCIE1012)

way of getting other things but because of their own intrinsic nature. The first kind of good is
called instrumental good because the goodness of these things lies in their being instruments
towards the attainment of the other things which are considered good not simply as
instruments. The second category of good is called intrinsic good because we value these
things (whatever they may turn out to be) not for what they lead to but for what they are.

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

Activity:
Would you give examples of the things instrumentally and intrinsically good and bad in a
society you come from?

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

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

The tasks of weighing ethical values and evaluating different ethical arguments are unlike
many other kinds of human tasks. Ethical values are usually not as easy to understand as
other kinds of values, e.g., it is probably easier to explain the (mainly) practical value of

2|Page
 CITIZENSHIP AND MORAL EDUCATION (MCIE1012)

energy than it is to explain the ethical value of courage. In turn, it is easier to test a person‘s
blood pressure than it is to determine whether or not they are virtuous.

Moreover, ethical problems are often not as clear as other kinds of problems and resolving
ethical problems as definitively is not always possible. The aim of ethics then, is not, despite
popular opinion, to take the high moral ground and tell people what to do, but, rather, to offer
tools for thinking about difficult problems. Good ethical thinking purposefully seeks out the
grey in questions and concerns in order to acknowledge the diversity and complexity of roles,
situations and circumstances that arise in human life and relationships.

As complex as ethical situations may be, however, there is still an obligation on everyone
involved in ethically-challenging situations to resolve any problems that arise in the most
sincere, reasonable and collaborative way possible. This means that they must be prepared to
review and revise their position in the light of reflection, discussion and changing
circumstances.

Activity:
Form a group and develop a list of behaviors that are always right and behaviors that are
always wrong. Keep a record of those behaviors that were nominated but rejected by the team
and why. Report your final list, as well as your rejected items, to the rest of the class. What
do you conclude from this exercise?

1.3.1. Ethical Principles and Values of Moral Judgments

The branch of philosophical study that focuses on ‗ethics‘ is concerned with studying and/or
building up a coherent set of ‗rules‘ or principles by which people ought to live. The
theoretical study of ethics is not normally something that many people would regard as being
necessary in order for them to conduct their everyday activities. In place of systematically
examined ethical frameworks, most people instead carry around a useful set of day-to-day
‗rules of thumb‘ that influence and govern their behavior; commonly, these include rules such
as ‗it is wrong to steal‘, ‗it is right to help people in need‘, and so on.

But sometimes the vicissitudes and complexities of life mean that these simple rules are
sometimes put to the test. Consider the idea that it is wrong to kill. Does this mean that
capital punishment is wrong? Is it wrong to kill animals? Is killing in self-defence wrong? Is
the termination of pregnancy wrong? Is euthanasia wrong? If we try to apply our everyday

3|Page
 CITIZENSHIP AND MORAL EDUCATION (MCIE1012)

notions of right and wrong to these questions, straightforward answers are not always
forthcoming. We need to examine these questions in more detail; and we need theoretical
frameworks that can help us to analyze complex problems and to find rational, coherent
solutions to those problems. Whilst some people attempt to do this work individually, for
themselves, philosophers attempt to find general answers that can be used by everyone in
society.

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

1.3.2. Moral intuitions and Critical Reasoning

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

All societies are characterised by their own ethical ideas – expressed in terms of attitudes and
beliefs – and their own customs (their notions of what is considered customary). Some of
those ethics are formalised in the laws and regulations of a society, nation or state. Such
customs and laws can influence the consciences and the moral sentiments of those living in a
society, as individuals acquire ideas and attitudes from their families and from their wider

4|Page
 CITIZENSHIP AND MORAL EDUCATION (MCIE1012)

society. Philosophical ethics, however, asks us to take a step back from these influences and
instead to reflect critically on our sentiments and attitudes.

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

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

[Link]. Types of reasoning

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

Three forms of critical reasoning:

‗Reasoning by analogy explains one thing by comparing it to something else that is similar,
although also different. In a good analogy, the similarity outweighs the dissimilarity and is

5|Page
 CITIZENSHIP AND MORAL EDUCATION (MCIE1012)

clarifying. For instance, animals are like and unlike humans, as humans are also animals. Is
the similarity sufficiently strong to support the argument that we should ascribe rights to
nonhuman animals as we do to humans?‘
‗Deductive reasoning applies a principle to a situation. For instance, if every person has
human rights, and you are a person, then you have human rights like every person.‘
‗Inductive reasoning involves providing evidence to support a hypothesis. The greater the
evidence for a hypothesis, the more we may rely on it.‘ The fact that there is mounting
evidence that the burning of fossil fuels is having a detrimental effect on global climate, for
example, is used to substantiate the argument that we have a moral duty to reduce carbon
emissions.
[Link]. Ethics and Religious Faith
There is another important argument that people use when making ethical arguments:
religious faith. For many people, ‘morality and religious faith go hand in hand‘. Rather than
relying on rational arguments, some people view actions as being right or wrong in terms of
whether they are commanded by a god. Some moral philosophers do not view arguments
based on religious faith as being rationally defensible. They believe that we can determine
through rational reflection what is right and wrong. If a god commands only what is right
then, logically, this makes divine commands unnecessary; we are able to know what is right
or wrong without relying on any divine commandments, as we can use rational reflection.

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

[Link]. Testing moral arguments

Critical reasoning is about asking questions whenever anyone gives us a reason to support an
argument. What kind of reasoning are they using? If they are using a principle to support
their argument (deductive reasoning), then what kind of principle is it? Is the principle

6|Page
 CITIZENSHIP AND MORAL EDUCATION (MCIE1012)

rational? If they are providing evidence to support their argument (inductive reasoning) then
is the evidence reliable? Have any motives that might be behind their arguments been
clarified (ie are they giving rationalisations, not reasons)? Does the conclusion drawn make
sense, given the reasons they have given? All of these questions that we ask about peoples‘
arguments may seem a little onerous and off-putting. With such rigorous criteria, some
people may feel that they don‘t want to make any argument at all, as they are bound to make
mistakes in their reasoning! However, most people already use critical reasoning when they
make arguments and question other people‘s arguments. We have an idea of what we think is
right based on our experience (our ethical presumptions), and we explain those ideas to other
people based on our feelings (intuitions) and reasons. It is important and useful to develop the
ability to test your own arguments and those of others, both to address the dilemmas that
occur in our personal lives, our communities and the organisations for which we work.

There are three main ways of testing a moral argument. These are outlined in below;

Three ways to test a moral argument:

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

7|Page
 CITIZENSHIP AND MORAL EDUCATION (MCIE1012)

factually correct and consistent, they also need to ‗exemplify good will‘. This involves
resorting to our intuitions and emotions, which are notoriously difficult to integrate with
rigorous theoretical debate.

1.3.3. Thinking Ethically: A framework for Moral Decision Making

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

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

[Link]. Fairness and Justice Approach

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

 How fair is an action?

 Does it treat everyone in the same way, or does it show favoritism and
discrimination?

Favoritism gives benefits to some people without a justifiable reason for singling them out;
discrimination imposes burdens on people who are no different from those on whom the
burdens are not imposed. Both favoritism and discrimination are unjust and wrong. Aristotle
believed that ethical knowledge is not precise knowledge, like logic and mathematics, but
general knowledge like knowledge of nutrition and exercise. Also, as it is a practical
discipline rather than a theoretical one; he thought that in order to become "good", one could

8|Page
 CITIZENSHIP AND MORAL EDUCATION (MCIE1012)

not simply study what virtue is; one must actually be virtuous. Analogously, in order to
become good at a sport like football, one does not simply study but also practices. Aristotle
first establishes what was virtuous. He began by determining that everything was done with
some goal in mind and that goal is 'good.' The ultimate goal he called the Highest Good:
happiness. Aristotle contended that happiness could not be found only in pleasure or only in
fame and honor. He finally finds happiness "by ascertaining the specific function of man". A
human's function is to do what makes it human, to be good at what sets it apart from
everything else: the ability to reason or logos. A person that does this is the happiest because
he is fulfilling his purpose or nature as found in the rational soul.

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

[Link]. The Common Good Approach

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

This approach to ethics assumes a society comprising individuals whose own good is
inextricably linked to the good of the community. Community members are bound by the
pursuit of common values and goals. The common good is a notion that originated more than
2,000 years ago in the writings of Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero. More recently, contemporary
ethicist John Rawls defined the common good as "certain general conditions that are equally
to everyone's advantage." In this approach, we focus on ensuring that the social policies,
social systems, institutions, and environments on which we depend are beneficial to all.
Examples of goods common to all include affordable health care, effective public safety,
peace among nations, a just legal system, and an unpolluted environment.

9|Page
 CITIZENSHIP AND MORAL EDUCATION (MCIE1012)

Appeals to the common good urge us to view ourselves as members of the same community,
reflecting on broad questions concerning the kind of society we want to become and how we
are to achieve that society. While respecting and valuing the freedom of individuals to pursue
their own goals, the common good approach challenges us also to recognize and further those
goals we share in common. It presents a vision of society as a community whose members
are joined in a shared pursuit of values and goals they hold in common.

The principle of the common good approach states;

―What is ethical is what advances the common good.‖

[Link]. The Rights Approach:

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

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

In deciding whether an action is moral or immoral using this approach, we must ask, does the
action respect the moral rights of everyone? Actions are wrong to the extent they violate the
rights of individuals; the more serious the violation, the more wrongful the action.

10 | P a g e
 CITIZENSHIP AND MORAL EDUCATION (MCIE1012)

Activity:
Reflect on one of your ethical decisions. Which approach(es) did you use when making your
determination? Evaluate the effectiveness of the approach(es) as well as the quality of your
choice. What did you learn from this experience?

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

Generally, in Ethical Problem Solving;

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

1.4. To Whom or What Does Morality Apply?

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

1.4.1. Religious Morality

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

11 | P a g e
 CITIZENSHIP AND MORAL EDUCATION (MCIE1012)

The Ten Commandments

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

1.4.2. Morality and Nature

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

1.4.3. Individual Morality

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

12 | P a g e
 CITIZENSHIP AND MORAL EDUCATION (MCIE1012)

1.4.4. Social Morality

Social morality concerns a human being in relation to other human beings. It is probably the
most important aspect of morality, in that it cuts across all of the other aspects and is found in
more ethical systems than any of the others. Returning briefly to the desert-island example,
most ethicists probably would state that Robinson Crusoe is incapable of any really moral or
immoral action except toward himself and nature. Such action would be minimal when
compared with the potential for morality or immorality if there were nine other people on the
island whom he could subjugate, torture, or destroy. Many ethical systems would allow that
what he would do to himself is strictly his business, ―as long as it doesn‘t harm anyone else.‖

1.5. Who is Morally/Ethically Responsible?

Morality pertains to human beings and only to human beings; all else is speculation. If one
wants to attribute morality to supernatural beings, one has to do so solely on faith. If one
wants to hold animals or plants morally responsible for destructive acts against each other or
against humans, then one has to ignore most of the evidence that science has given us
concerning the instinctual behavior of such beings and the evidence of our own everyday
observations.

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

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

13 | P a g e
 CITIZENSHIP AND MORAL EDUCATION (MCIE1012)

1.5.1. Moral Judgments

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

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

1. Motives: Motives, as Jesus, Kant, and others have pointed out, are basic for a
determination of morality. The motive refers to the intention or why an action is done. A
good motive is a prerequisite to conduct that we approve without qualification. If a good
motive is present when an act, through some unforeseen factor, leads to harmful effects, we
tend to disapprove less severely and to say, ―Anyway, he meant well.‖

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

14 | P a g e
 CITIZENSHIP AND MORAL EDUCATION (MCIE1012)

thinking the seat of moral worth is the individual’s will, and the good will acts out of a sense
of duty.

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

3. Consequences: Consequences are the effects or results of a moral decision based on a

value. We expect the consequences of an act that we call ―right‖ to be good. Ordinarily,
when people ask, ―what is right? they are thinking about the consequences of the action.
This depends on what ethical principle is in operation. Kant agrees to the good motive,
utilitarians to the result.

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

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

3.5.2. What Makes an Action Moral?

Sometimes we think of ―moral‖ means morally good. But, philosophically, it refers to an
action which comes within the scope of morality, that is, an action which is morally
significant either in positive way ( because it is good or right) or in a negative way (because
the action is good or bad). Not all actions have a moral sense. Many of the actions we
perform in life , such as putting on a raincoat, sharpening a pencil, or counting apples,
standing on your head, are not in themselves either good or bad acts. Such actions are morally

15 | P a g e
 CITIZENSHIP AND MORAL EDUCATION (MCIE1012)

neutral or non-moral. By contrast, stealing from your libraries, punching people or helping
the disadvantage are considered as morally significant actions. But, what makes an act enter
the moral arena or what features of action make us judge them to be good or bad, right or
wrong? The following are features that make an action moral:

A. A moral act involves an agent: If something is a natural event or an action performed by

animals, then it is morally neutral - it does not appear on our moral radars. Humans can be
moral agents, or any creatures that can freely and thoughtfully choose its actions will count as
a moral agent.

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

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

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

Generally, a moral action is one which:

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

16 | P a g e
 CITIZENSHIP AND MORAL EDUCATION (MCIE1012)

1.6. Why Should Human Beings Be Moral?

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

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

A. Argument from Enlightened Self-Interest

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

B. Argument from Tradition and Law

Related to the foregoing argument is the argument from tradition and law. This argument
suggests that because traditions and laws, established over a long period of time, govern the
behavior of human beings, and because these traditions and laws urge human beings to be
moral rather than immoral, there are good reasons for being so. Self-interest is one reason,
but another is respect for the human thought and effort that has gone into establishing such
laws and traditions and transferring them from one historic period and one culture to another.
This can be an attractive argument, even though it tends to suppress questioning of traditions
and laws - a kind of questioning that is at the core of creative moral reasoning. It is

17 | P a g e
 CITIZENSHIP AND MORAL EDUCATION (MCIE1012)

interesting to note that most of us probably learned morality through being confronted with
this argument, the religious argument, and the experiences surrounding it. Don‗t we all
remember being told we should or should not do something because it was or was not in our
own self-interest, because God said it was right or wrong, or because it was the way we were
supposed to act in our family, school, society, and world?

C. Common Human Needs

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

Morality is not of course identical with following self-interest. If it were, there could be no
conflict between morality and self-interest and no point in having rules overriding self-
interest. John Hospers

Morality exists, in part, because of human needs and through recognition of the importance of
living together in a cooperative and significant way. It may not be the case that all human
beings can be convinced that they should be moral, or even that it will always be in each
individual‗s self-interest to be moral. However, the question ―why should human beings be
moral?‖ generally can best be answered by the statement that adhering to moral principles
enables human beings to live their lives as peacefully, happily, creatively, and meaningfully
as is possible.

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

18 | P a g e
 CITIZENSHIP AND MORAL EDUCATION (MCIE1012)

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

 Behaving morally is a matter of self-respect.

 People won‘t like us if we behave immorally.
 Society punishes immoral behavior.
 God tells us to be moral.
 Parents need to be moral role models for their children.

These are all good answers, and each may be a powerful motivation for the right person. With
religious believers, for example, having faith in God and divine judgment might prompt them
to act properly. With parents, the responsibility of raising another human being might force
them to adopt a higher set of moral standards than they would otherwise. However, many of
these answers won‘t apply to every person: nonbelievers, nonparents, people who don‘t
respect themselves, people who think that they can escape punishment.

There are two distinct components to the question ―Why be moral?‖

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

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

a) Keep society from falling apart.

b) Reduce human suffering.
c) Promote human flourishing.
d) Resolve conflicts of interest in just and orderly ways.
e) Assign praise and blame, reward and punishment, and guilt.

All these benefits have in common the fact that morality is a social activity: It has to do with
society, not the individual in isolation. If only one person exists on an island, no morality
exists; indeed, some behavior would be better for that person than others—such as eating
19 | P a g e
 CITIZENSHIP AND MORAL EDUCATION (MCIE1012)

coconuts rather than sand—but there would not be morality in the full meaning of that term.
However, as soon as a second person appears on that island, morality also appears. Morality
is thus a set of rules that enable us to reach our collective goals. Imagine what society would
be like if we did whatever we pleased without obeying moral rules.

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

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

20 | P a g e
 CITIZENSHIP AND MORAL EDUCATION (MCIE1012)

References
A Framework for Thinking Ethically.‖ ETHICS 1, no. 2 (Winter 1988).
Barry, V. (1983) Philosophy: A Text with Readings.2nd ed. Belmont, Wadsworth Publishing
com.
Bonevac, D. (1999) Today‘s Moral Issues: Classic and Contemporary Perspectives, 3rd ed.
California, Mayfield
Boss, J. A. (1999) Analyzing Moral Issues. Mayfield Publishing Company.
Thiroux, J. (1995). Ethics: Theory and Practice. 5th Ed. New Jersey, Prentice Hall.
Titus, H. H. (1947) Ethics for Today. 2nd Ed. New York, American Book Company

21 | P a g e