Chapter Three: Ethical Decision Making and Moral

Judgments

1.1. 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 circumstances.

1.1.1. 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
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.

1.1.2. 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.

1.1.2.1. 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.

1.1.2.2. 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.
1.1.2.3. 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.

1.1.2.4. 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.
1.1.3. 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.

1.1.3.1. 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.”

1.1.3.2. 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.

1.1.3.3. 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.

1.2. 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.

1.2.1. 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.
(Exod. 20:1–17)
1.2.2. 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.

1.2.3. 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.

1.2.4. 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.”

1.3. 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.
1.3.1. 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.

1.4. 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.

Activity:
Apply all ethical approaches presented in the chapter. Keep a record of your
deliberations and conclusions using each one? Did you reach different
solutions based on the theory you used? Were some of the perspectives
more useful in this situation? Are you more confident after looking at the
problem from a variety of perspectives? Write up your findings.

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.