Chapter three

3. Ethical decision making and moral judgments

3.1. 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.

3.2. 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. For these difficulties, Individuals could give their own justification to
testify that they are right or correct. In frequently we declare that we make right decision and
actions. Also we regret when we make wrong decision and action.

The ethical nature of our action and decision is very much dependent upon our notion of
“Good” and “Bad”, “Right” and “wrong” Before we can see how human beings judge the
morality of their actions, let raise some puzzling questions: What things are good or bad?
There are things which we consider good or desirable for their result-for what they lead to.
There are also things which we consider good not because of what they lead to but because
of what they are in themselves: this are considered as worth having or perusing not merely
as way of getting other things but because of their own intrinsic nature.
 The first kind of good is called instrumental good because the goodness of these things lies
in their being instruments towards the attainment of the other things which are considered
good not simply as instruments.
The second category of good is called intrinsic good because we value these things
(whatever they may turn out to be) not for what they lead to but for what they are.

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 and etc which are considered to be unethical or bad or evil practices which are to
be eradicated.

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

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

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

Generally, in the time of making of ethical decision and action we can take tasks such as:
raising puzzling questions, analyzing about the ethical values and critically evaluate the
based on adequacy of reason, made use of ethics related with religious faith, testing moral
argument

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

Think about a significant decision that you have made that had an effect (either for good or bad)
on the lives of other people. This could be a decision about changing a job, moving home,
responding to a dilemma, helping somebody who was in difficulty, etc.

How did you arrive at your decision? Was your decision based explicitly on ideas of what was
right and wrong? Try to examine and record precisely the justifications for your decision. Can
you identify any underlying principles or rules which you used to reach your decision?

The underlying principles or rules which are important to make a decision 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.’

 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.

3.1.2 Moral intuitions or perceptions and Critical Reasoning

 The study of ethics involves reasoning about our feelings.
 It involves making sense and rationalizing our intuitions about what is 'right' or 'good'.
 Almost all people, to a greater or lesser extent, are capable of experiencing feelings of
empathy towards others. Empathy provides us with a sense of what others are feeling and
may thereby allow us to identify with other people. Empathy therefore gives us what
Traer (2013) refers to as our moral sentiments; and ethical reasoning about these
 sentiments gives us our moral principles. The integration of these moral sentiments and
principles, Traer (2013) argues, is our conscience. Our moral conscience, then, is based
on emotions, but should also be supported by reason.
 All societies are characterized by their own ethical ideas - expressed in terms of attitudes
and beliefs - and their own customs (their notions of what is considered customary).
 Some of those ethics are formalized in the laws and regulations of a society, nation or
state. Such customs and laws can influence the consciences and the moral sentiments of
those living in a society, as individuals acquire ideas and attitudes from their families and
from their wider society.
 But, Philosophical ethics, asks us to take a step back from these influences and instead to
reflect critically on our sentiments and attitudes.

[Link] Rationalization

In the first way, Studying ethics must be 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.
As Traer (2013) explains, 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 one that
involves what is known as a rationalization Traer (2013).
 A rationalization occurs when we use what at first glance seem to be rational or credible
motives to cover up our true (and perhaps unconscious) motives. For example, if a
landowner seeks to build a plastic recycling plant and states that this is driven by a desire
to create local employment opportunities - whereas in fact their true motive is to make a
profit - then this is a rationalization. The landowner is not giving their true reasons for
wanting to build the plant. If, however, they argue that they want to make a personal
profit and create local jobs, then they may be giving two true reasons for their motives.

 An argument is not simply about our beliefs or opinions; instead, it is about the reasons
underlying those beliefs or opinions.

[Link]. Types of reasoning

Traer (2013) explains that we can uncover these types of errors in our own and others' arguments
by using what he calls 'critical reasoning'. Therefore, we can take additional three forms of
critical reasoning that individuals can use to justify their arguments.

Three forms of critical reasoning

'Reasoning by analogy or comparison: - it explains one thing by comparing it to something else

that is similar, or different. In a good analogy, the similarity outweighs the dissimilarity and is
clarifying. For instance, animals are like and unlike humans, as humans are also animals. Is the
similarity sufficiently strong to support the argument that we should ascribe rights to nonhuman
animals as we do to humans?'

‘Reasoning by Deductive: - it 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.' Generally it
means the critical reason is based on the situation or condition.

‘Reasoning by Inductive: - it involves providing evidence to support a hypothesis or

assumption. The greater the evidence for a hypothesis, the more we may rely on fact.' 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' (Traer 2009). 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, Traer (2009) argues that a discussion of faith-based arguments is 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'
(Traer 2009).
While we may insist that moral principles and decisions should be justified by rational
arguments, Traer (2009) argues that consideration of religious arguments should not be
excluded from the study of ethics.
Whether or not one personally chooses to accept faith-based arguments as valid within
ethical discussions is a decision that requires careful consideration.

[Link] Testing moral arguments

Critical reasoning is about asking questions whenever anyone gives us a reason to support an
argument. What kind of reasoning are they using? If they are using a principle to support their
argument (deductive reasoning), then what kind of principle is it? Is the principle rational? If
they are providing evidence to support their argument (inductive reasoning) then is the evidence
reliable? Have any motives that might be behind their arguments been clarified (ie are they
giving rationalizations, not reasons)? Does the conclusion drawn make sense, given the reasons
they have given? All of these questions that we ask about peoples' arguments may seem a little
onerous and off-putting. With such rigorous criteria, some people may feel that they don't want
to make any argument at all, as they are bound to make mistakes in their reasoning! However, as
Traer (2013) makes clear, most people already use critical reasoning when they make arguments
and question other people's arguments. We have an idea of what we think is right based on our
experience (our ethical presumptions), and we explain those ideas to other people based on our
feelings (intuitions) and reasons. It is important and useful to develop the ability to test your own
arguments and those of others, both to address the dilemmas that occur in our personal lives, our
communities and the organizations for which we work.

The Three ways to test a moral argument

1. Factual accuracy: 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 and it can be
strongly connected with fact.

2. Consistency: The arguments need to be consistent.

 The argument is tested in its consistency. Example, 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.
 Example of 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 is the most difficult criterion to quantify or test the argument. While
arguments may be factually correct and consistent, they also need to 'exemplify good will'. This
involves resorting to our intuitions and emotions, which are notoriously difficult to integrate with
rigorous theoretical debate.

3.2.3 Thinking Ethically: A framework for Moral Decision Making

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, the Rights, and the Virtues.
[Link] Fairness and Justice Approach

 Aristotle and other Greek philosophers have contributed the idea that all equals should be
treated equally and “unequals are treated unequally.”
 Today we use this idea to say that ethical actions treat all human beings equally-or if
unequally, then fairly based on some standard that is defensible or valid. We pay people
more based on their harder work or the greater amount that they contribute to an
organization, and say that is fair. But there is a debate over CEO salaries that are
hundreds of times larger than the pay of others; many ask whether the huge disparity is
based on a defensible standard or whether it is the result of an imbalance of power and
hence is unfair.

[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 or benefit of everyone. Example to be important as common; a system of laws,
effective police and fire departments, health care, a public educational system, or even
public recreational areas.
[Link] The Utilitarian Approach

 Some ethicists emphasize that the ethical action is the one that provides the most good or
does the least harm, or, to put it another way, produces the greatest balance of good over
harm.
 The ethical corporate action, for example, is the one that produces the greatest good and
does the least harm for all who are affected-customers, employees, shareholders, the
community, and the environment.
 The utilitarian approach is a teleological or ends-based approach that focuses on
consequences; it tries both to increase the good done and to reduce the harm done.

[Link] The Rights Approach

Other philosophers and ethicists suggest that the ethical action is the one that best
protects and respects the moral rights of those affected.
This approach starts from the belief that humans have a dignity based on their human
nature per se or on their ability to choose freely what they do with their lives. On the
basis of such dignity, they have a right to be treated as ends and not merely as means to
other ends.
The list of moral rights -including the rights to make one's own choices about what kind
of life to lead, to be told the truth, not to be injured, to a degree of privacy, and so on-is
widely debated; some now argue that non-humans have rights, too. Also, it is often said
that rights imply duties-in particular, the duty to respect others' rights.

[Link] The Virtue Approach

Virtue is very ancient approach to ethics.

It says that ethical actions ought to be consistent with certain ideal virtues that provide for
the full development of our humanity. These virtues are disposition or character and
habits that enable us to act according to the highest potential of our character and on
behalf of values like truth and beauty.
Honesty, courage, compassion, generosity, tolerance, love, fidelity, integrity, fairness,
self-control, and prudence are all examples of virtues.
 Virtue ethics asks of any action, "What kind of person will I become if I do this?" or "Is
this action consistent with my acting at my best?"

3.3 To Whom or where morality can be apply

In discussing the application of morality, four aspects must be taken in to consideration: religious
morality, morality and nature, individual morality, and social morality.

3.3.1 Religious Morality

Religious morality refers to a human being in relationship to a supernatural being.

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

The Ten Commandments

1. I am the Lord, Your God; do not worship false gods.

2. Do not take the name of God in vain.

3. Keep holy the Sabbath Day.

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 need your neighbor’s spouse.

10. Do not need your neighbor’s belongings. (Exod.20:1–17)

3.3.2 Morality and Nature

Morality must be interconnected with nature.

Morality and nature refers to a human being have relationships to nature.
Natural morality has been prevalent or common 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.
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.

3.3.3 Individual Morality

 Individual morality refers to individuals have relations 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 or ethics.

3.3.4 Social Morality

 Social morality concerns a human being have relations to other human beings.
 It is probably the most important aspect of morality, because 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. For a majority of ethicists, the most
important human moral issues arise when human beings come together in social groups
and begin to conflict with one another.

 Natural morality has been prevalent in all primitive cultures, such as that of the Native
American, and in cultures of the Far East.

3.4 Who is Morally/Ethically Responsible?

Who can be held morally or ethically responsible for their actions? All of the evidence we have
gained to date compels us to say that 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 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 a fox
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.
There are, of course, limitations as to when human beings can be held morally
responsible, but the question of moral responsibility should not even be brought up where
nonhumans are involved.

3.4.1 Moral Judgments

 Moral judgments refer to deciding what is right and what is wrong in human relations.
 Moral judgments approve of some acts and call them ―right or ―good. They condemn
other acts and call them ―wrong or ―evil or bad.
 Individuals are continually judging their own conduct and that of their fellows.
 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 seen 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 thinking the seat of moral worth is the
individual’s will, and the good will acts out of a sense of duty.

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

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

 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. And generally, in the time of judging conduct or action
we can take motive, means, consequence and moral situation.

3.4.2. What Makes an Action is Moral?

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

The following are features or characteristics that are important to make an action is moral:

1. 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.
2. A moral act involves intention or target: 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.

3. 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.

3.5 Why Should Human Beings Be Moral?

“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? The above question should not
be confused with the question, “Why should I or any one individual be moral?” As Kai Nielsen
says in his brilliant essay “Why Should I Be Moral?” these are two different questions. The
second one is very difficult to answer with any clear, conclusive evidence or logic, but the first
one is not.

Difficulties involved in founding morality on religion, and especially on religion as a sole factor,
have already been pointed out. But, if a person has religious faith, then he or she does have a
foundation for a personal morality, even though this foundation is basically psychological rather
than logical in nature. The use of religion as the foundation of morality frequently leads to the
assumption that if there is no supernatural or religious basis for morality, then there can be no
basis at all. A related, and perhaps deeper, statement is that there can be no real meaning to
human life unless there is some sort of after life or some other extra natural reason for living.
However, it is obvious that for many individuals this is psychologically true; that is, they feel
that their existence has meaning and purpose and that they have a reason for being moral if and
only if there is a God, an afterlife, or some sort of religion in their lives. We must respect this
point of view and accept the conviction of the many people who hold it, because that is how they
feel about life and morality.

It is also obvious; however, that many people do not feel this way. And, many people also think
it is terribly presumptuous of religious believers to feel that if some people do not have a
religious commitment, their lives are meaningless or that such people have no reason for being
moral in their actions. But if religion does not necessarily provide a “why” for morality, then
what does? 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.

 The use of religion as the foundation of morality frequently leads to the assumption that if
there is no super natural or religious basis for morality, then there can be no basis at all.

A. Argument from Enlightened Self-Interest

 One can certainly argue on a basis of enlightened or liberal self-interest that means better
to be good rather than bad and to create a world and society that is good rather than one is
bad.
  As a matter of fact, self-interest is the sole basis of one ethical theory that is called ethical
egoism. However, it is not being suggested at this point that one ought to pursue one’s
own self-interest. Rather, an argument from enlightened self interest is being presented
that if everyone tried to do and be good and tried to avoid and prevent bad based on
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 or has strong sound the argument from
enlightened self-interest is compelling or forceful.

B. Argument from Tradition and Law

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

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

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