CHAPTER 4: MORAL REASONING

STANLEY B. FOLLANTE
INSTRUCTOR
MORAL REASONING
SCOTT RAE’S 7-STEP
MORAL REASONING
MODEL
• SCOTT RAE’S MODEL FOR MORAL
REASONING PRESENTS A 7-STEP
APPROACH TO MORAL ANALYSES AND
EVALUATION. IT IS ORIENTED TOWARDS
VIRTUES AND PRINCIPLES WITH
CONSIDERATION OF CONSEQUENCES AS
A SUPPORTING ROLE (RAE 2018). THIS
MODEL IS FREE FROM CULTURAL,
ETHNIC AND RELIGIOUS BACKGROUND
AND BIASES, THOUGH IT IS
CONSISTENT/USES BIBLICAL PRINCIPLES.
THE 7-STEP MODEL IS AS FOLLOWS:
1. GATHER THE FACTS

• IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT IN MORAL DECISION- MAKING, ONE HAS TO KNOW

THE GENERAL FACTS OF THE MORAL SITUATION, BEFORE COMING UP
WITH A MORAL ANALYSIS, MORE SO, A DECISION OR AN EVALUATION.
• THE SIMPLEST WAY OF CLARIFYING AN ETHICAL DILEMMA IS TO MAKE SURE
THE FACTS ARE CLEAR. ASK: DO YOU HAVE ALL THE FACTS THAT ARE
NECESSARY TO MAKE A GOOD DECISION? WHAT DO WE KNOW? WHAT DO WE
NEED TO KNOW? IN THIS LIGHT IT MIGHT BECOME CLEAR THAT THE
DILEMMA IS NOT ETHICAL BUT ABOUT COMMUNICATION OR STRATEGY
(RAE, 2018).
• ➢AFTER HAVING IDENTIFIED THE FACTS AND OVERALL
2.CONTEXT
DETERMINE THE ETHICAL ISSUES
OF THE MORAL SITUATION, THE ETHICAL ISSUE/S
INVOLVED IN THE SITUATION, MUST BE CLEARLY STATED IN
ORDER TO SPECIFY WHAT ISSUE ONE HAS TO MAKE A DECISION
TO. THIS SECTION MUST LIKEWISE CLEARLY STATE THE MAJOR
MORAL DILEMMA INVOLVED IN THE CASE.
• ➢ETHICAL INTERESTS ARE STATED IN TERMS OF LEGITIMATE
COMPETING INTERESTS OR GOODS. THE COMPETING INTERESTS
ARE WHAT CREATE THE DILEMMA. MORAL VALUES AND
VIRTUES MUST SUPPORT THE COMPETING INTERESTS IN ORDER
FOR AN ETHICAL DILEMMA TO EXIST. IF YOU CANNOT IDENTIFY
THE UNDERLYING VALUES/VIRTUES THEN YOU DO NOT HAVE AN
ETHICAL DILEMMA. OFTEN PEOPLE HOLD THESE POSITIONS
STRONGLY AND WITH PASSION BECAUSE OF THE VALUE /
VIRTUE BENEATH THEM (RAE 2018).
3. DETERMINE WHAT VIRTUES / PRINCIPLES HAVE
A BEARING ON THE CASE
• ➢APPLICABLE ETHICAL VALUES AND PRINCIPLES RELEVANT TO THE CASE
MUST BE IDENTIFIED AND BRIEFLY EXPLAINED IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY HOW
SUCH PRINCIPLES COULD BE USED IN COMING UP WITH A DECISION
CONCERNING THE MORAL DILEMMA LATER ON. IN ADDITION, THE SOURCES
OF THESE PRINCIPLES MUST BE ACKNOWLEDGED LIKEWISE. THESE VALUES,
PRINCIPLES COULD COME FROM: (1) ESTABLISHED PHILOSOPHICAL ETHICAL
PRINCIPLES; (2) SOCIO-CULTURAL NORMS; (3) SOCIO-POLITICAL NORMS
AND LAWS; (4) RELIGIOUS TRADITIONS; AND OTHERS.
• ➢IN AN ETHICAL DILEMMA CERTAIN VALUES AND PRINCIPLES ARE CENTRAL
TO THE COMPETING POSITIONS. IDENTIFY THESE. DETERMINE IF SOME
SHOULD BE GIVEN MORE WEIGHT THAN OTHERS. ASK WHAT THE SOURCE FOR
THE PRINCIPLE IS - CONSTITUTION, CULTURE, NATURAL LAW, RELIGIOUS
TRADITION... THESE SUPPLEMENT BIBLICAL PRINCIPLES (RAE 2018).
4. LIST THE ALTERNATIVES

• ➢AFTER HAVING IDENTIFIED RELEVANT VALUES, VIRTUES, AND PRINCIPLES

INVOLVING THE MORAL SITUATION, POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE COURSES OF
ACTIONS MUST THEN BE PROPOSED AND BRIEFLY EXPLAINED. THESE
SUGGESTED COURSES OF ACTIONS MUST THEN BE EVALUATED BASED ON
ITS APPLICABILITY, SENSIBILITY, PRACTICALITY BEFORE SELECTING ONE AS
THE COURSE OF ACTION OR DECISION TO BE MADE REGARDING THE MORAL
SITUATION.
• ➢CREATIVELY DETERMINE POSSIBLE COURSES OF ACTION FOR YOUR
DILEMMA. SOME WILL ALMOST IMMEDIATELY BE DISCARDED BUT
GENERALLY THE MORE YOU LIST THE GREATER POTENTIAL FOR COMING UP
WITH A REALLY GOOD ONE. IT WILL ALSO HELP YOU COME UP WITH A
BROADER SELECTION OF IDEAS (RAE 2018).
5. COMPARE THE ALTERNATIVES WITH THE
VIRTUES / PRINCIPLES
• ➢THE INITIAL LIST OF SUGGESTED COURSES OF ACTIONS MUST THEN BE
EVALUATED FROM THE VANTAGE POINT OF THE IDENTIFIED ETHICAL
VALUES AND PRINCIPLES.
• ➢THIS STEP ELIMINATES ALTERNATIVES AS THEY ARE WEIGHED BY THE
MORAL PRINCIPLES WHICH HAVE A BEARING ON THE CASE. POTENTIALLY
THE ISSUE WILL BE RESOLVED HERE AS ALL ALTERNATIVES EXCEPT ONE ARE
ELIMINATED. HERE YOU MUST SATISFY ALL THE RELEVANT VIRTUES AND
VALUES - SO AT LEAST SOME OF THE ALTERNATIVES WILL BE ELIMINATED
(EVEN IF YOU STILL HAVE TO GO ON TO STEP 6). OFTEN HERE YOU HAVE TO
WEIGHT PRINCIPLES AND VIRTUES - MAKE SURE YOU HAVE A GOOD REASON
FOR EACH WEIGHTING (RAE 2018
6. CONSIDER THE CONSEQUENCES

• ➢IF PRINCIPLES HAVE NOT YIELDED A CLEAR DECISION CONSIDER THE

CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR ALTERNATIVES. TAKE THE ALTERNATIVES AND
WORK OUT THE POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES OF EACH.
ESTIMATE HOW BENEFICIAL EACH POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES
ARE – SOME MIGHT HAVE GREATER WEIGHT THAN OTHERS (RAE 2018).
7. MAKE A DECISION (INCLUDING ONE’S
JUSTIFICATION FOR THE DECISION)

• ➢AFTER HAVING ANALYZED THE MORAL DILEMMA SITUATION (FROM STEPS

1 THRU 6), ONE MUST NOW MAKE A DECISION BASED ON WHAT HAS BEEN
PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED AND MUST CLEARLY JUSTIFY THE DECISION THAT
HAS BEEN MADE.
• ➢ETHICAL DECISIONS RARELY HAVE PAIN-FREE SOLUTIONS - IT MIGHT BE
YOU HAVE TO CHOOSE THE SOLUTION WITH THE LEAST NUMBER OF
PROBLEMS / PAINFUL CONSEQUENCES (RAE 2018).
 REASON, EMOTIONS, AND IMPARTIALITY: WHAT
IS THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF MORALITY?

• • REASON
IT ALLOWS US TO THINK RATIONALLY ABOUT THE CHOICES YOU HAVE AND KEEPS YOUR EMOTIONS IN CHECK. WE
LIKEWISE USE THIS IN ORDER TO MAKE SENSE OUT OF THE WORLD.
• • IMPARTIALITY
ENTAILS BEING FAIR AND CONSIDERATE OF OTHERS AND THE IMPACT OF YOUR ACTIONS ON THEM. AS A
PRINCIPLE OF JUSTICE WHICHSTATES THAT DECISIONS SHOULD BE BASED ON OBJECTIVE CRITERIA, RATHER THAN
ON THE BASIS OF BIAS, PREJUDICES, OR PREFERRING THE BENEFIT TO ONE PERSON OVER ANOTHER FOR IMPROPER
REASONS.
• • MORAL COURAGE
IT IS THE ABILITY TO TAKE ACTION FOR MORAL REASONS DESPITE THE RISK OF ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES. THIS
COULD BE SEEN IN THE STATEMENT, “KNOW WHAT IS RIGHT AND FIGHT FOR WHAT IS RIGHT THROUGH DOING THE
RIGHT THING.”
• • ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING
ENTAILS EVALUATING AND CHOOSING AMONG
ALTERNATIVES IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH
ETHICAL PRINCIPLES. THIS REQUIRES DISCIPLINE AND
REASON AND THE NECESSITY TO PERCEIVE AND
ELIMINATE UNETHICAL OPTIONS AND SELECT THE BEST
ETHICAL ALTERNATIVE.
• IMPEDIMENTS TO ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING

• EGOCENTRISM- THE TENDENCY TO EMPHASIZE ONE'S OWN NEEDS,

CONCERNS, AND OUTCOMES RATHER THAN THOSE OF OTHERS. ALSO
CALLED EGOCENTRICITY.
• IMMATURITY – BEHAVIOR NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CURRENT AGE.
• WRONGFUL THINKING - A PATTERN OF INACCURATE, DAMAGING
THOUGHTS.
Deontology comes from the Greek Word = DEON, which means duty.
Deontological Ethics determines actions as either morally right or wrong
depending on if one upholds his/her duty.

• W.D. Ross mentions that the following are our duties towards others:

Justice – a duty to fight for what is right

DEONTOLOGICAL
ETHICS: RIGHTS
Reparation – a duty to make things right AND DUTY

Fidelity – a duty to demonstrate

Self-Improvement – duty to oneself wherein improve our capacities and

abilities.
IMMANUEL KANT WAS A MODERN
PHILOSOPHER WHO FORMULATED HIS
CONCEPT OF THE CATEGORICAL
IMPERATIVE WHICH HAS THREE MAIN
FORMULATIONS:

• ACT ONLY ON THAT MAXIM THROUGH WHICH YOU

CAN AT THE SAME TIME WILL THAT IT SHOULD
BECOME A UNIVERSAL LAW. (UNIVERSALITY)
• ACT IN SUCH A WAY THAT YOU ALWAYS TREAT
HUMANITY NEVER SIMPLY AS A MEANS BUT ALWAYS
AT THE SAME TIME AS AN END. (HUMAN DIGNITY)
• ACT ALWAYS ON THAT MAXIM SUCH A WILL IN US AS
CAN AT THE SAME TIME LOOK UPON ITSELF AS
MAKING UNIVERSAL LAW. (AUTONOMY)