MODULE 3
FEELINGS AND MORAL DECISION-MAKING
FEELINGS AS INSTINCTIVE RESPONSE TO MORAL DILEMMAS
Some ethicists hold that moral judgments at their best should also be emotional.
Emotions can be rational in being based at least sometimes on good judgments about how
well a circumstance or agent accomplishes appropriate objectives. Feelings are also
instinctual by providing motivations to act morally.
Many times, ethical judgments are highly emotional as people emotionally express their
strong approval or disapproval of different acts.
FEELINGS AS OBSTACLES TO MAKING THE RIGHT DECISIONS
Feelings and emotions, however, can become obstacles or impediments to becoming
ethical.
Ethical Subjectivism
It is fundamentally a meta-ethical theory. It is a theory about the nature of moral
judgments.
It holds that the truth or falsity of ethical propositions is dependent on the feelings,
attitudes, or standards of a person or group or persons.
For every controversial ethical topic, we usually hear at least two opposing views
concerning the matter.
- One camp which declares the action as immoral
- Another camp which claims that the action is moral
- There is a third stance – that of the Ethical Subjectivist: People in the first two groups
are expressing their respective opinion, but where morality is concerned, there are no
objective facts and no position is objectively right.
The theory proposes that when we say something is morally good, this just means we
approve of or like that thing. Similarly, when we state that something is morally bad, this
means that we disapprove of or do not like that thing.
Analysis of Ethical Subjectivism
On a positive note, ethical subjectivism allows us to think for ourselves because it
implies that we need not agree with culture or society.
It indicates, unbelievably, that the mere fact that we like something would make it good. It
provides a weak foundation for dealing with topics like drug addiction, bullying, slavery,
racism and discrimination.
According to ethical subjectivism, when we express one’s actions as evil, we merely say we
have negative feelings toward the deeds.
The moral judgments we make do represent the “truth”.
If Ethical Subjectivism is correct, then each of us is infallible in our moral judgments as long
as we are speaking sincerely. But we are not infallible – we may be mistaken, even when we
are speaking sincerely. Therefore, Ethical Subjectivism cannot be correct. When A says “X
is morally acceptable” and B says “X is morally unacceptable,” they are disagreeing. But if
Ethical Subjectivism is correct, there would be no disagreement between A and B.
Therefore, Ethical Subjectivism cannot be correct.
It could have dangerous implications in moral education. Deficient in providing us any
guide on how to develop sensible and proper feelings, it, in effect, tells us to simply follow
our personal feelings and emotions.
Emotivism
It was developed chiefly by the American philosopher Charles L. Stevenson. It has
been one of the most influential theories of Ethics in the 20 th century.
It is actually the most popular form of non-cognitivism, the meta-ethical theory that
claims that ethical sentences do not convey authentic propositions. According to
Emotivism, moral judgments are not statements of fact but are mere expressions of
the emotions of the speaker, especially since they are usually feelings-based.
Some emotivists base their stance on logical positivism, which claims that any
legitimate truth must be empirically verifiable. Since moral judgments cannot be tested by
sense experience, they cannot be authentic truth claims but can only express feelings.
According to Emotivism, utterances in ethics are not fact-stating sentences. They are not
used to convey information; instead, they have two entirely different purposes:
First, moral sentences are used as a means of influencing others’ behavior.
- To say “X is immoral,” it is equivalent to saying “Do not do X!” -
- To say “X is moral” is to say “Do X!”
- Thus, the utterance is more like a command.
Second, moral sentences are used to express (not report) the speaker’s attitude.
- “X is moral” merely means “Hooray for X!”
- “X is immoral” just means “Boo on X!”
- Thus, the utterance is more like an exclamation.
Since ethical judgements are essentially commands and exclamations, they are not true or
false; so there cannot be moral truths and moral knowledge.
Evaluation of Emotivism
It is barely sensible to base a moral theory on logical positivism. Logical positivism
is self-refuting as the view is not itself verifiable by sense experience and thus would not be
a genuine truth claim on its own grounds.
In denying moral truths and moral knowledge, Emotivism seems to dilute what morality is
instead of elucidating it. It is also unclear how the ethical “good” can be reasonably
reducible to mere exclamation.
Emotivism suggests that in ethical disputes, we cannot appeal to reason but only to
emotion. It is thus against our basic knowledge that it is favorable if opposing groups
would instead judiciously deliberate about their ethical differences and resort to reasons to
resolve them.
Emotivism also fails to distinguish moral judgments from mere expressions of personal
preference. For an utterance to become a genuine moral or value judgment, it must be
supported by pertinent reasons.
Having logical positivist background, Emotivism discards moral truths. Maintaining that
moral claims are not testable by empirical observation and experimentation, it reduced
morality to mere matters of feelings. It however fails to notice that humans have not only
feelings but also reason, and reason plays a vital role in Ethics.
FEELINGS CAN HELP IN MAKING THE RIGHT DECISIONS
Admittedly, there are situations in which our feelings and likings are relevant to the
rightness of our decisions and actions.
Ethics-without-feeling also appears to go against Christian philosophy’s emphasis in love,
for love is basically a strong liking, desire, or emotion.
Emotions are a crucial art of what gives life meaning, and ought to play a guiding role in
morality.
Nonetheless, the feelings or emotions involved in moral thinking should be anchored on
careful consideration of a full range of right goals, including altruistic ones.
Ethical Decision-Making
Ethical Reasoning Can Be Taught: Ethical reasoning is a way of thinking about issues
of right and wrong. Processes of reasoning can be taught, and school is an appropriate place
to teach them. the reason that, although parents and religious schools may teach ethics, they
do not always teach ethical reasoning. And, like learning to play baseball or play the violin,
it's important to practice early and often.
Beneficence
Beneficence is the concept that scientific research should have as a goal the welfare
of society. It is rooted in medical research, the central tenet is "do no harm" (and corollaries
The term beneficence connotes acts or personal qualities of mercy, kindness, generosity, and
charity. It is suggestive of altruism, love, humanity, and promoting the good of others. In
ordinary language, the notion is broad, but it is understood even more broadly in ethical
theory to include effectively all norms, dispositions, and actions with the goal of benefiting
or promoting the good of other persons. The language of a principle or rule of beneficence
refers to a normative statement of a moral obligation to act for the others’ benefit, helping
them to further their important and legitimate interests, often by preventing or removing
possible harms. Many dimensions of applied ethics appear to incorporate such appeals to
obligatory beneficence, even if only implicitly. For example, when apparel manufacturers
are criticized for not having good labor practices in factories, the ultimate goal of the
criticisms is usually to obtain better working conditions, wages, and other benefits for
workers.
Whereas beneficence refers to actions or rules aimed at benefiting others,
benevolence refers to the morally valuable character trait—or virtue—of being disposed to
act to benefit others. Many acts of beneficence have been understood in moral theory as
obligatory, as determined by principles of beneficence that state moral obligation. However,
beneficent acts also may be performed from nonobligatory, optional moral ideals, which are
standards that belong to a morality of meritorious aspiration in which individuals or
institutions adopt goals and practices that are not obligatory for everyone.
Exceptional beneficence is commonly categorized as supererogatory, a term meaning
paying or performing beyond what is obligatory or doing more than is required. This
category of extraordinary conduct usually refers to high moral ideals of action, but it has
links to virtues and to Aristotelian ideals of moral excellence. Such ideals of action and
moral excellence of character need not rise to the level of the moral saint or moral hero.
Moral excellence comes by degrees, and not all supererogatory acts of beneficence or
benevolent dispositions are exceptionally arduous, costly, or risky. Examples of less
demanding forms include anonymous gift-giving, uncompensated public service, forgiving
another person’s costly error, and complying with requests to provide a benefit that exceeds
the obligatory requirements of ordinary morality or professional morality. Remove harm,
prevent harm, optimize benefits, "do good").
Moral courage
Moral courage is the ability to stand up for and practice that which one considers
ethical, moral behavior when faced with a dilemma, even if it means going against
countervailing pressure to do otherwise. Those with moral courage resolve to “do the right
thing” even if it puts them at personal risk of losing employment, isolation from peers and
other negative consequences. One should stand up for what is right even if it means
standing alone (Murray, 2010). According to former Senator from Maine Margaret Chase
Smith: The right way is not always the popular and easy way. Standing for right when it is
unpopular is a true test of moral character.
One should not confuse moral courage with moral arrogance or moral certitude.
Individual, social, and cultural values may differ, so it is important to have open, respectful
communication (Murray, 2010) While the values of honesty, integrity, fairness, compassion
and respect seem to be universal, different cultures might prioritize them differently.
Critical Checkpoints in using Moral Courage for Ethical Decision Making
Steps Checkpoint
Evaluate the circumstances to establish whether moral courage is needed in the
1 situation
Determine what moral values and ethical principles are at risk or in question of
2 being compromised
Ascertain what principles need to be expressed and defended in the situation –
3 focus on one or two of the more critical values
4 Consider the possible adverse consequences/risks associated with taking action
Assess whether or not the adversity can be endured – determine what
5 support/resources are available
Avoid stumbling blocks that might restrain moral courage, such as apprehension
or over reflection leading to reasoning oneself out of being morally courageous
6 in the situation
7 Continue to develop moral courage through education, training, and practice
Inhibitors of Moral Courage
1. Organizational cultures that stifle discussion regarding unethical behaviors and tolerate
unethical acts
2. Willingness to compromise personal and professional standards in order to avoid social
isolation from peers or to secure a promotion/favoritism within the organization
3. Unwillingness to face the tough challenge of addressing unethical behaviors
4. Indifference to ethical values
5. Apathy of bystanders who lack the moral courage to take action
6. Group think that supports a united decision to turn the other way when unethical
behaviors are taking place
7. Tendency to redefine unethical behaviors as acceptable
(Adapted from Kidder, 2005)
Make An essay, select one on the following topic.
1. Courage means overcoming fear - fear of failure, fear of ostracism, fear of being wrong.
What do you do to overcome that fear?
2. What do you fear most in social interaction? How do you overcome that fear in order to
manage difficult discussions?
3. What is the role of feelings in moral decisions?
4. Why is reason not enough in carrying out moral decision?
Recitation:
Why do I need to handle my feelings?
How do our feelings/emotions affect decisions making?
