MODULE 3

THE ACT

This section addresses the following questions:

1. What is the role of feelings in moral decisions? What are the disadvantages of over-
reliance on feelings?
2. How can we make reasoned and impartial decisions?
3. Why is reason not enough in carrying out moral decisions?

Activity:
Before or After the class.
1. Watch the movie “ Bridges of Madison County”
2. Explain how feelings can interfere in making moral decision?
3. Is moral decision is a mere product of our feelings?
4. Does one single act can be the basis of morality of the human person?

THE ACT

No one can deny the fact that when the human person is placed in moral dilemma, his
decision can also be greatly affected by his feelings. The moral decision that man makes will
definitely not be fully objective. For the instance, one’s decision regarding the morality of death
penalty will vary if he is placed in a situation wherein his family is greatly affected by a
murderous act. A person who is never a victim of any crime may view the death penalty as
morally unacceptable. At the same time, a person who has a very close relative indicted for
robbery may cry for forgiveness while those who do not have such may demand punishment. In
this regard, moral decision can be a product of feelings or emotions.

Feelings and Morality

During the early part of his philosophizing, David Hume (1711-1776) believed virtue is in
conformity to reason. Like truth, morality is discerned merely by ideas. In order to distinguish
the good and the bad, we have to consider reason alone (Hume 2004, 59). Philosophers during
the time of Hume placed greater emphasis on the prominence of reason over feelings. Western
philosopher was actually reacting to the position held by the church scholars who asserted that
religion is a necessary foundation for morality. According to the religious apologist, moral
decision must be rooted in religious laws and doctrines. For these western thinkers, the
foundation of morality is the reason. Such position was actually held even by the ancient
western thinkers.
During the ancient period. Plato would argue that the function of reason is to rule the
appetites and emotions. He held that the Mind or the Intellect, which is the highest
level of the soul, is that immoral part of the soul that gives the man the capacity for
truth and wisdom. This part of the soul, which Plato called the nous, is closely connected
with the world of forms
(Buenaflor, et al., 46). On the other hand, Stoics upheld that the human person must be able to
learn to control his passion with reason in order to live a moral life The Stoics believed each
person shares a common element: reason. Because every man has a reason, everyone,
therefore, has a right reason in common. This right reason is Law. Hence, moral decision must
always be rooted on the right reason as this is the thing that we have in common with the gods
(Buenaflor 2011, 104).
In the modern period. Rene Descartes, in his desire to get away from the authority of
the church, held that reason has prominence over church laws and religious doctrines. In
matters of morality, reason must have the prevalence (Soccio, 300). For Hume, the central fact
about ethics is that moral judgments are formed not by reason alone but through feelings.
Hume believed that indeed reason plays an important role in making discussions about ethical
decisions. (Stump and Fleser, 2008, 251) wrote:

…………..But, Hume says, reason “ is not sufficient alone to produce any moral blame or
approbation.” What limits the role of reason in ethics is that reason makes judgment concerning
the truth of empirical “matter of fact” and analytical “relations of ideas.” Moral assessment are
not judgment about the truth and falsehood of anything. Instead, moral assessments are
emotional reactions.
Hume held that the judgment of good and evil of an act is not a new fact of discovered
or deduced by reason. If this is the case, we might be ending up with saying that moral
assessment is similar to mathematical judgment. Good and evil are not existing matter of fact.
One’s view regarding he goodness and badness of an action is based on passions, motives,
volitions, and thoughts. Hence, the goodness and badness of an act lie in the person, not in the
object or in the action. Hume held that moral decision would always involve feelings or
emotions. For instance, because I will feel sympathetic pain on my friend whose brother
brutally killed by a gunman, I will surely develop a moral condemnation on the action of the
killer. However, if somebody will do a charitable deed of feeding a street child, I will surely feel
sympathetic pleasure for that person. Such pleasure originates from my moral approval of the
good deed.
From the point of view of Hume, moral sentiments are found in all people. Everyone has
an instinctive capacity to give praise and to uphold the moral actions performed by a person to
others. Hume held that whatever actions that would give the spectator a pleasing sentiment
would be considered as morally acceptable while those that would be unpleasing to the other
spectators be considered morally unacceptable. Agreeableness and usefulness can be, for
Hume, a good consideration for morality. But agreeable to whom and useful for what? Hume
held that the interest should not be for one’s own but for somebody else’s, i.e., for the interest
of those who would be directly or indirectly affected by a particular action.
Based on the principle given above, it is clear to say that Hume believed that feelings
and agreeableness can be considered as a clear criterion of moral judgment. He believed that a
behavior is considered to be virtuous if it is useful or agreeable to people who are affected by
the action being considered to be morally acceptable (Stumpf & Fieser, 253).

Reason and Impartiality

 If David Hume would have the claim that morality must be rooted in feelings, the
American philosopher Thomas Nagel would have a different claim. He believed that morally
must be rooted not in feelings or emotions because it will make morally subjective. Morality
must be objective. Hence, it must be rooted on reason. Accordingly, no matter how great our
feeling on particular situation can be, such feelings will not be considered as a basis for a
universal moral principle because my feeling on particular issue may be different from the
feelings of other.
Our feelings may be irrational. They may be products of prejudice, selfishness, or
cultural conditioning. One's moral decision may depend on the effect of one’s action to the
person involve. Consider this example given in the book The elements of moral philosophy:

Tracy latimer, a 12-year-old victim of cerebral palsy, was killed by her father in 1993.
Tracy lived with her family on a prairie farm in Saskatchewan, Canada. One Sunday morning,
while his wife and other children were at church, Robert Latimer put Tracy in the cab of his
pickup truck and piped in exhaust fumes until she died. At the time of her death, Tracy weighed
less than 40 pounds, and she was described as” functioning at the mental level of a 3-monthold
baby,” Mrs. Latimer said that she was relieved to find Tracy dead when she arrived home and
added that se “didn’t have the courage “ to do it herself.

Robert Laitmer was tried for murder, but the judge and jury did not want to treat him
harshly. The jury found him guilty of only second-degree murder and recommended that the
judge ignore the mandatory 10-year sentence. The judge agreed and sentenced him to one
year in prison, followed by a year of confinement to his farm. But the Supreme Court of Canada
stepped in and ruled that the mandatory sentence is imposed. Robert Latimer entered prison in
2001 and was paroled in 2008 (Rachel & Rachel, 7-8).

On the question as to whether Rober Latimer’s action can be considered moral, our
answer must not be affected by our own emotions, but rather by our reason. As we can see,
from the point of view of the family of Robert, his decision killing Tracy in such a justifiable
because of the pain that they are having whenever they would see Tracy in such pitiable
condition. But if our decision will be based on the feelings of the family who is into that
situation, our moral decision will become subjective and we may not be able to arrive at a
moral decision that will be acceptable to everyone else, should this be the case, we will be
failing into the problem of moral relativism.
From the view point of Thomas Nagel, the basis of morality must be on the happiness
that one’s action may cause to the others. If an action is going to cause harm to others, then
the action is considered to be evil. Supposing that a teacher is being requested by a parent of
one of his students to give him the leakage for the final exam so that his son may be able to
pass the said examination and eventually be included in the graduation list. The parent’s
predicament is that if he will not be able to graduate, he will not be able to finish his studies
because next school year , he has to give way to his younger sibling who is also about to enter
college and the parent will not able to afford to have the two to go to college at the same time.
Indeed, the teacher may consider the request of the parent of his student as wrong. He
may believe that he should not help her. However, the teacher may also believe that helping
the parent in this particular request is wrong not just because it is against the law of the school
but because the reason for helping the student cheat is wrong as this is unfair to the other
students who are studying very hard in order to pass the examination, while this particular
student of his will be able to pass just because of the predicament that he will not be able to
finish his college if he will not pass this examination. Here, it is to be noted that an action can
be considered wrong not only because of the effect that it will create on the person who will be
doing the cheating but because of the effects that said cheating will entail to other people. The
argument that the action is wrong is supposed to give the doer of an act enough reason not to
do the said act. However, if someone does not really care about other people, what reason will
the said person have in order to prevent him from cheating? The person will not be caught and
he finds no reason why his act of cheating would be wrong, then, should the action not be
considered wrong anymore?
In this situation, we ask now: what is a moral truth? It has to be noted that discovering
the truth can only be made possible if one is guided by reason. Most philosopher would
consider this as the essence of morality. The morally right thing is to do the action that
supported by rational arguments. It must be noted that not every reason is good. There may
still be valid reasons. However, it will be the job of the person to discern which reason is good.
It is therefore important to know the facts first. At the time, the person must take away any
prejudices. There are times when people would consider a reason as valid because it supports,
he biases and agrees with the preconceived conditions. For instance, there are people who do
not support the idea of giving charities because they believed that they are inefficient even if
they do not have enough evidence for the claim. At the same time, others also have the belief
that homosexuality is morally unacceptable because of the preconceived idea that homosexual
men are all pedophiles even if only few of them are. For this reason, it is important that a
person should try to look at things according to how they are and not on how they wanted
them to be (Rachel & Rachel, 12).
In discerning over the facts, it important that the decision maker must be impartial to
certain issue. One should be able to consider that every oral decision is equally important to
others. In this regard, no decision should be given more favor that the others. Although
impartiality may be good a basis for making moral decision, Thomas Nagel, however, believed
that impartiality is only a bare outline of the source of morality (Nagel 2004, 67). Nagel held
that indeed, ethics as well political theory). Nagel wanted to point out that it is quite difficult to
establish a universal moral decision because there many disagreements among those who
accept morality in general and about what in particular is right or wrong. For example, are we
going to take good care of every other person as much as we do to ourselves? Will it be better
to just donate to the poor the money that I should have used to buy movie ticket?
If people would become impartial, then he would not care anymore whether he would
care more about strangers than he should have with one’s relatives. What degree of
impartiality, then, must be taken into consideration in order to determine whether one’s action
is morally better than the other? Can we consider as impartial action be more moral? Is there a
way by which we can strike the balance between what one cares about personally from what
matters impartially? Or will the answer to these questions vary from person to person
depending on the strength of their different motives (Gensler, 68)? What then will the minimum
conception of morality? The basis of morality, in this regard, must be reason.

8 Steps to Moral Reasoning Process

Based on the issue above whether moral decision be rooted from feelings or from
reason, or whether we should be partial or impartial in our decision, we cannot deny the fact
that we are failing into a dilemma. The difficulty in making decisions is that the situation that
requires our decision may have already placed us in a dilemma. More so, the manner of
deciding may place us again in a separate dilemma. And so, in order to avoid failing into
dilemma after dilemma, we have to ask the question: Where shall we start? When people are
placed in decision –making they have to have a direction that will enable them to move
constructively in order to make a resolution. To address the ethical dilemma that we encounter
in our day- to- day living, the following will serve as a model that can be used in order to assure
that all the necessary bases are covered:

1. Gather the facts. Before making a moral decision, it is important that the necessary facts
be gathered. Ethical dilemma can be resolved simply by clarifying the facts of the case
in question. This is the essential first step prior to any ethical analysis and reflection on
the case. In gathering the facts, question like “what do we know?” and “what do we
need to know?” must be asked.
2. Define the ethical issues. Ethical issues are considered as the competing interest or
goods.
The competing interest are actually the reason why there is an ethical dilemma. In this regard,
issues can be presented as versu. This will help the person analyze the interest that are
contradicting one another. For example, the right of the teacher to give failing grade to
students who are not academically qualified and incompetent versus the obligation of the
teacher to become charitable to students.
3. Review relevant ethical guidelines. It is important to determine the different ethical
guidelines in order to determine which ethical guidelines can be best applied to the
issue. It is indeed a fact that here, the biblical principles will be given primary
considerations. However, there may be other principles that may have more weight.
Constitutional and natural law principles must also be taken into account Here, the
principles that we come out based on one’s sense of mission and vocation are also
important to consider.
4. Obtain consultation. Inasmuch as no one can really be an expert in making moral
decisions, it is important to consult person who are more competent in terms of
morality. One may consult a religious leader, or well –revered teacher, or an elder in a
society who can have more wisdom than us. The views of these people may not be our
final ethical decision. However, their moral views can at least provide a guide as to what
ethical decision can be best made.
5. List the alternative courses of action . Making moral decision require creative thinking,
which will help one identity various alternative curse of action. Indeed, it may be easier
to make a decision when there is no alternative course of action. However, the more
alternative that can be listed, the better the chance that the list will include some high-
quality alternative for a better decision.
6. Compare the alternative with the principle . From the listed alternatives, the next step is
to connect the alternatives with the moral principles that have a bearing on the case.
Most of the time, the case will already be resolves at this point because the principles
will eliminate all the other alternatives except the one which will uphold a moral value.
However, in case that there is no clear decision that may come into force at this point,
then it is necessary to get the next step. The best thing here is this point some
alternatives have already been eliminated.
7. Weight the consequence. If the moral principles that have a bearing on the case do not
yet provide a clear decision, then it is necessary to consider the consequences of an
action. At this point, it is important to take note of both the positive and the negative.
 8. Make a decision. After weighting all the consequences, a decision has to be made.
Notice that in an ethical dilemma, one has to undergo the painful process of critical
studies and analyses. When a decision has to be made already, it is also necessary to
consider that the decision should be that which involves the least number of problem or
negative consequences, and not the one that is devoid of problems.

The aforementioned step by step method be of great help in making it easier for a person to
make a moral decision. However, the method may not always guarantee that the decision that
will be made will be the best decision. And so, if it will still be important to consider whether the
action will be beneficial to other people or not.

Name:_________________________________________

Course:_________________________________________ Date:_____________________

Module 3
ACT

Direction: Write TRUE if the statement is correct and FALSE if the statement is incorrect.
Write your answer on the space provided before each number.

1. During the first part of his philosophizing, David Hume held that virtue
is in conformity to reason and morality is discerned merely by ideas.

2. According to the church scholars during the medieval and modern ages,
religion is a necessary foundation of morality.

3. The ancient western thinkers believed that the foundation of morality is

feelings.

4. Rene Descartes gave respect to the prominent of the church laws and
religious doctrines.

5. David Hume believed that reason plays an important role in making

discussions about ethical decision

6. Rene Descartes held that one’s view regarding the goodness and
badness of an action is based on passions, motives, volitions, and
 thoughts.

7. Hume believed that if an action is useful too others and to one’s self, it
is then considered to be morally acceptable.

8. Rational moralist believed that morality must be absolute and universal:

hence, it must be grounded on reason.

9. Thomas Nagel held that morality must be based on reason.

10. Thomas Nagel believed that impartiality must be the main basis of
morality.

Name:_________________________________________

Course:_________________________________________ Date:_____________________

Direction: Identify the following. Write your answer in the space provided before each
number.

1. According to him, reason must be placed higher than the

feelings because the function of reason is to rule the
appetites and emotions. Who is this philosopher?

2. The Stoics believed that each person shares a common

element. What is this element that people share in
common with each other?

3. Plato held that this is the highest level of the soul. What is
this?

4. He believed that reason has a prominence over church

 laws. Who is this philosopher?

5. He held that the central fact about ethics is that moral

judgments are formed not by reason alone but through
feelings. Who is this philosopher?

6. This philosopher held that morality must be rooted not in

feelings or emotions because that will make morality
subjective. Who is this philosopher?

7. This group of people believed that human person must be

able to learn to control his passion. Who are they?

8. According to this group of scholars, religion is a necessary

foundation of morality.

THE HAPPINESS THAT ONE’S 9. Thomas Nagel held that morality must be based on
ACTION MAY CAUSE TO THE ________
OTHERS
10. In order to get the assurance that one would have a good
moral decision, the first step that he should do
is_______________

Name:_________________________________________

Course:_________________________________________ Date:_____________________

Module 3
THE ACT(2)

Direction: Analyze the moral situation presented below and make a moral decision using the
moral reasoning process presented in this chapter. Write your analysis in the space provided.

A mother was found to be 2-months pregnant. She had previous pregnancies but during
this time of her pregnancy, she was having pains in her abdomen. At first, she thought that it
was just an ordinary stomach pain being felt normally by any pregnant woman. But later on,
the pain was becoming more frequent and was becoming intolerable. When the pain was
already too much, that was the time when she decided that she should consult her OB-
Gynecologists so as to identify the cause of pain.
During an ultrasound, it was found out the woman has a myoma inside her uterus that
needed an immediate surgical operation so as to avid greater complications. The doctor advised
the woman that the operation should occur in less than a month so as not to put the woman’s
life in peril. However, the operation will lead to the abortion of the fetus. What, then, should be
the decision of the woman? If the doctor would ask you as the immediate family member of the
woman, whom would you choose: the mother of the baby? Why?