Chapter Three: Ethical Decision Making and Moral Judgments

3.1. 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.

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. 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 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.

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 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 circumstancesn.

3.3.1. 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 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.’

3.3.2. Moral intuitions and Critical Reasoning

The study of ethics involves reasoning about our feelings. In other words, it involves making sense

of and rationalising 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 society. Philosophical ethics, however,

asks us to take a step back from these influences and instead to reflect critically on our sentiments

and attitudes.

3.3.2.1. 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.

3.3.2.2. 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 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.

3.3.2.3. 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.

3.3.2.4. 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

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 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.

3.3.3. 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.

3.3.3.1. 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 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.”

3.3.3.2. 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.

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.”

3.3.3.3. 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.

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?

3.4.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.

3.4.1. 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.

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.

3.4.2. 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.

3.4.3. 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.
3.4.4. 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.”

3.5. 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.

3.5.1. 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 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, 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 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.

3.6. 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 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.

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 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.