6 CHARACTERISTICS OF MORAL STANDARDS
THAT DIFFERENTIATE THEM FROM NON-MORAL
STANDARDS
1) Moral standards involve serious wrongs or
significant benefits.
Deal with matters which can seriously impact, that
is, injure or benefit human beings.
It is not the case with many non-moral standards.
2) Moral standards ought to be preferred to other
values
Moral standards have overriding character or
hegemonic authority.
Hegemonic Authorities
o It has an overriding character.
o It must be always preferred or on top of
other values, even our self-interests.
If a moral standard state that a person has the
moral obligation to do something, then he/she is
supposed to do that even if it conflicts with other
non-moral standards, and even with self-interest.
3) Moral standards are not established by authority
figures.
Moral standards are not invented, formed, or
generated by authoritative bodies or persons such
as nations’ legislative bodies.
Ideally instead, these values ought to be
considered in the process of making laws.
Cannot be changed nor nullified by the decisions of
particular authoritative body.
Moral Standards are used as basis to create laws or
rules.
4) Moral standards have the trait of universalizability.
Simply put, it means that everyone should live up
to moral standards.
To be more accurate, however, it entails that moral
principles must apply to all who are in the relevantly
similar situation.
If one judges that act A is morally right for a
certain person B, then it is morally right for
anybody relevantly similar to B.
Follows the principle of consistency.
Universalizability is an extension of the principle of
consistency, that is, one ought to be consistent
about one’s value judgments.
Everyone must follow the moral standards because
it is applicable to all.
The decision that you bring to a person who
experiences the same and relevant situation must
also be the same for another one.
Because that is the trait that the moral
standards have – which is Universalizability.
Exemplified in the Golden Rule.
5) Moral standards are based on impartial
considerations
Goes beyond personal interest to a universal
standpoint in which each person’s interests are
impartially counted as equal.
Moral standard does not evaluate standards
on the basis of the interests of a certain
person/group.
Everyone should live out to the Moral Standards.
Must be free from biases and prejudices.
Impartiality is usually depicted as being free of bias
or prejudice.
Impartiality in morality requires that we give
equal and/or adequate consideration to the
interests of all concerned parties.
6) Moral standards are associated with special
emotions and vocabulary.
Prescriptivity
The practical or action-guiding nature of
moral standards.
Evaluate behavior, assign or praise and blame.
That will produce either satisfaction or guilt.
These moral standards are generally put forth as
injunction or imperatives.
Such as, ‘do not kill,’ ‘do no unnecessary
harm,’ and ‘love your neighbor’
"You Should", "Do Not", "You Must" –
Injunctions used in Moral Standards.
These principles are proposed for use, to
advise, and to influence to action.
Retroactively, this feature is used to evaluate
behavior, to assign praise and blame, and to
produce feelings of satisfaction or of guilt.
FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE THE MORAL
STANDARDS
Factors that Influence the Moral Standards
1. Our own moral principles
2. Values imbibed in us through our church (Religious
Values)
3. Values passed on to us by our parents
4. Values taught to us in school (Education Values)
5. Behavior of others
6. Cultural Standards
7. Experiences
An ethical dilemma is a situation where two or more
moral principles conflict, forcing the individual to
choose between them.
Types of Ethical Dilemmas
Truth vs Loyalty: This type of ethical dilemma
arises when one is caught between absolute
honesty and allegiance to individuals or
groups (Kidder, 2015). For instance, consider
an employee who discovers fraudulent
activities in their company. If they disclose this
information, they remain truthful but might
violate their loyalty to the company and
colleagues (real-world example of
whistleblowing).
Individual vs. Community: Individual vs.
community dilemmas involve discrepancies
between personal interests and collective
benefits (Kidder, 2010). A pandemic situation
offers an apt example—individuals might
resist wearing masks for personal comfort, but
this stands contrary to the community’s need
for public safety (this is a contemporary real-
world example).
Short-term vs. Long-term: This type of
ethical dilemma compels one to choose
between immediate benefits or long-term
consequences (Kidder, 2015). For instance, a
business might opt to cut corners and make
profits now, despite the potential long-term
detriment to its reputation and customer trust
(real-world example of businesses taking
shortcuts).
Justice vs Mercy: Lastly, justice vs. mercy
dilemmas highlight the tension between fair
consequences and compassion (Kidder, 2010).
In the courtroom, for example, a judge might
struggle with issuing a strict sentence (justice)
or leniency (mercy), particularly in
extenuating circumstances such as the
accused being a first-time offender (real-world
example from the legal system).
