GE1705

The Act

Feelings and Moral Decision-making

I. Feelings as Instinctive Response to Moral Dilemmas

Some ethicists believe that ethics is also a matter of emotion. They hold that moral judgments at their best
should also be emotional. Feelings are seen as also necessary in ethical judgment as they are even deemed
by some as instinctive a trained response to moral dilemmas.

Some hold that reason and emotion are not really opposites. Both abstract inference and emotional
intuitions or instincts are seen as having relative roles ethical thinking. For one thing, feelings or emotions
are said to be judgments about the accomplishment of one's goals. Emotions, it is thus concluded, can be
rational being based at least sometimes on good judgments about how well a circumstance or agent
accomplishes appropriate objectives. Feelings are also visceral or instinctual by providing motivations to
act morally.

Many times, ethical judgments are highly emotional as people emotionally express their strong approval or
disapproval of different acts. Moral sentiments highlight the need for morality to be based also on sympathy
for other people. Many ethicists conclude that being good involves both thinking and feeling.

II. Feelings as Obstacles to Making the Right Decisions

• Ethical Subjectivism. This theory basically utterly runs contrary to the principle that morality is objective.
This theory is not about what things are good and what things are bad. It also does not tell how we should
live or what moral norms we should practice. Instead, it is a theory about the nature of moral judgments.

Although it admits that moral judgments are 'truth bearers,' Ethical Subjectivism holds that the truth or
falsity of ethical propositions is dependent on the feelings, attitudes, or standards of a person or group.
Contrary to the belief that morality is about objective facts, this theory states that moral judgments describe
our personal feelings.

For every controversial ethical topic such as homosexuality or abortion, we usually hear at least two (2)
opposing views concerning the matter. One camp which declares that the action as immoral may express
its stand by saying that God hates it, or that it is unethical, or that doers of the action must be punished by
the government. On the other hand, the rival group may claim that the action is perfectly normal and
practitioners must be tolerated, if not respected. But there is a third stance-another group might say that
people in the first two groups are expressing their respective opinion, but where morality is concerned,
there are no objective facts and no position is objectively right. This third stance represents Ethical
Subjectivism. It submits that our moral opinions are based on our feelings, and nothing more.

In Ethical Subjectivism, it is a fact that some people are homosexual and some are heterosexual; but it is
not a fact that one is good and the other is bad. So when someone says that homosexuality is wrong, he
is, according to the theory, not stating a fact about homosexuality but merely saying something about his
feelings toward it. Subjectivists hold that there is no such thing as objective right or real wrong.

The theory, therefore, proposes that when we say that something is morally good, this means that we
approve of that thing. Hence, the statement “X is moral” and all its variants (X is 'good', 'right', 'ethically
acceptable', 'ought to be done') simply mean “I (the speaker) like X" or "approve of X." Similarly, when we
state that something is morally bad, this means, in the theory, that we disapprove of or do not like that
thing, nothing more.

• Emotivism. One way to look at Emotivism is to view it as an improved version of Subjectivism. Considered
by its proponents as far subtler and sophisticated than Subjectivism, Emotivism is deemed invulnerable to
many objections. This theory that was developed chiefly by the American philosopher Charles L. Stevenson
(1909-1979) has been one of the most influential theories of Ethics in the 20th century.

03 Handout 1 *Property of STI

 student.feedback@sti.edu Page 1 of 6
 GE1705

The theory states that moral judgments express positive or negative feelings. "X is right" merely means
"Hooray for X!" and "X is immoral" just means "Boo on X!" Since ethical judgments are essentially
commands and exclamations, they are not true or false; so there cannot be moral truths and moral
knowledge.

Emotivism is the most popular form of non-cognitivism, the meta-ethical theory that claims that ethical
sentences do not convey authentic propositions. Moral judgments, according to Emotivism, are not
statements of fact but are mere expressions of the emotions of the speaker, especially since they are usually
feelings-based.

According to Emotivism, utterances in ethics are not fact-stating sentences, that is, they are not used to
convey information. Emotivism claims that they have two (2) entirely different purposes:

First, they are used as a means of influencing other's behavior. If someone says "Stealing is immoral,"
Emotivism interprets it as an attempt to stop you from doing the act. Thus the utterance is more like a
command it is equivalent to saying, "Don't do that!"

Second, moral sentences are used to express (not report) the speaker's attitude. Accordingly, saying
"Fair play is good" is not like saying "I approve of fair play," but it is like saying "Hurrah for fair play!".

III. Feelings Can Help in Making the Right Decisions

Ethics-without-feeling also appears to go against Christian philosophy’s emphasis on love, for love is
basically a strong liking, desire, or emotion. Applied religiously, excluding feelings in moral living seems to
go against the biblical decree to worship and serve God with a joyful heart or feeling.

Experientially, our moral compasses are also strongly influenced by the fleeting forces of disgust, fondness,
or fear. Indeed, subjective feelings sometimes matter when deciding between right and wrong. Emotions,
like our love for our friends and family, are a crucial part of what gives life meaning, and ought to play a
guiding role in morality. Sometimes, cold, impartial, rational thinking is not the only proper way to make an
ethical decision.

Nonetheless, the feelings or emotions involved in moral thinking should be anchored on careful
consideration of a full range of right goals, including altruistic ones. This consideration ought to mesh with
an instinctive emotional reaction that provides a motivation to act ethically and correct injustices.

Reason and Impartiality as Minimum Requirement for Morality

I. Reason and Impartiality Defined

Humans have not only feelings but also reason, and reason plays a vital role in Ethics. Moral truths are
truths of reason; that is, a moral judgment is true if it is espoused by better reasons than the alternatives.

If someone tells us that a certain action is immoral, we may ask why it is so, and 'if there is no reasonable
answer, we may discard the proposition as absurd. Also, if somebody utters that a particular act is wrong
and explains that it is because it does not happen to fit his taste, then we also do not count his claim as a
legitimate ethical judgment. Thus, reason is a requirement for morality.

At least in Philosophy, reason is the basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction. As a quality, it
refers to the capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; for consciously making sense of things,
establishing and verifying facts, applying common sense and logic, and justifying, and if necessary,
changing practices, institutions, and beliefs based on existing or new existing information.

Moreover, reason spells the difference of moral judgments from mere expressions of personal preference.
If after eating, someone says, "I like a sweet cake," he is not required to support it with good reasons for

03 Handout 1 *Property of STI

 student.feedback@sti.edu Page 2 of 6
 GE1705

that is a statement about his personal taste and nothing more. But in the case of moral judgments, they
require backing by reasons. In the absence of sensible rationale, they are merely capricious and ignorable.

Moral deliberation is a matter of weighing reasons and being guided by them. In understanding the nature
of morality, considering reasons is indispensable. Truth in Ethics entails being justified by good reasons.
That is, the right moral decision involves selecting the option that has the power of reason on its side.

Being defined by good reasons, moral truths are objective in the sense that they are true no matter what
we might want or think. We cannot make an act moral or immoral just by wishing it to be so, because we
cannot merely choose that the weight reason be on its side or against it. And this also explains why morality
is not arbitrary. Reason commends what it commends, regardless of our feelings, attitudes, opinions, and
desires.

Since the connection between moral judgments and reasons is necessary and important, then a proposed
theory on the nature of moral judgment should be able to give an account for the relation. In focusing on
attitudes and feelings, both Emotivism and Subjectivism fail to accomplish this important thing.

Impartiality, on the other hand, involves the idea that each individual’s interests and point of view are
equally important. Also called evenhandedness or fair-mindedness, impartiality is a principle of justice
holding that decisions ought to be based on objective criteria, rather than on the basis of bias, prejudice, or
preferring the benefit to one person over another for improper reasons.

Impartiality in morality requires that we give equal and/or adequate consideration to the interests of all
concerned parties. The principle of impartiality assumes that every person is equally important; that is, no
one is seen as intrinsically more significant than anyone else.

Other ethicists, however, suggest that some clarification is required. From the impartial standpoint, to say
that no one is seen as intrinsically more significant anyone else, is not to say that there is no reason
whatsoever for which an individual might demand more moral attention or better treatment than others.
Many ethicists suppose that from the impartial point of view, properly conceived, some persons count as
more significant, at least in certain ways. A virtuous and respectable religious leader may be supposed to
be more significant than a mere maid; so in an emergency (say, a building on fire) the decent religious
leader ought to be rescued first. The reason, nonetheless, is not that the religious leader is intrinsically more
significant rather; it is that he makes greater contributions to society.

II. The 7-Step Moral Reasoning Model

• Gather the facts. Some moral dilemmas can be resolved just by clarifying facts of the case in question.
But in more complex cases, gathering the facts is the indispensable first step before any ethical analysis
and reflection on the case. In examining a case, we want to know the available facts at hand, as well
as any facts presently not known but that need to be determined. We must ask not only "what do we
know?" but also "what do we need to know?” in order to generate an intelligent, ethical decision.

• Determine the ethical issues. The moral issues should be correctly stated in terms of competing
interests. It is these conflicting interests that practically make for a moral dilemma. The issues must be
presented in a P vs. Q format to reflect the interests that are colliding in a specific moral dilemma. For
instance, many ethical decisions, especially at the end of a patient's life, can be stated in terms of patient
autonomy (or the right of the individual to make his/her own decisions about medical care) vs. the
sanctity of life (or the duty to preserve life).

• Identify the principles that have a bearing on the case. What principles have a bearing on the case?
In any moral dilemma, there are sure moral values or principles that are vital to the rival positions being
taken. It is very significant to recognize these principles, and in some cases, to decide whether some
principles are to be weighted more heavily than others.

03 Handout 1 *Property of STI

 student.feedback@sti.edu Page 3 of 6
 GE1705

• List the alternatives. This step involves coming up with various alternative courses of action as part of
the creative thinking included in resolving a moral dilemma. Though there will be some alternatives
which you will rule out without much thought, in general, the more alternatives that are listed, the better
the chance that your list will include some high-quality ones. Also, you may come up with some very
creative alternatives that you had not considered before.

• Compare the alternatives with the principles. This step involves eliminating alternatives according
to the moral principles that have a bearing on the case. In many cases, the case will be resolved at this
point, since the principles will remove all alternatives except one. The purpose of this comparison is to
determine whether there is a clear decision that can be made without further deliberation. If a clear
decision is not forthcoming, then the next step in the model should be considered. Some of the
alternatives, at the least, may be rejected by this step of comparison.

• Weigh the consequences. If the principles do not produce a clear decision, then a consideration of
the consequences of the remaining available alternatives is in order. Both positive and negative
consequences are to be considered. They should be informally weighted since some positive
consequences are more beneficial than others, and some negative consequences are more detrimental
than others.

• Make a decision. Since deliberation ought not to go on forever, a decision must be made at some
point. It must be realized that one common element to moral dilemmas is that there are no easy and
painless solutions to them. Normally, the decision that is made is one that possesses the least number
of problems or negative consequences, not one that is devoid of them.

Moral Courage

I. The Importance of Will and Moral Courage

A good rational moral decision is not always executed. It is one thing to know a good moral act, and it is
another to actually execute it. Often, what is lacking is the moral courage, which necessarily involves the
concept of will. In morality, therefore, will is essential just as reason is significant.

Moral courage means doing the right thing even at the risk of inconvenience, ridicule, punishment, loss of
job or security or social status, etc. Moral courage requires that we rise above the apathy, complacency,
hatred, cynicism, and fear­mongering in our political systems, socioeconomic divisions, and
cultural/religious differences.

One sense of the concept 'will' refers to that faculty of the mind which chooses, at the moment of making
decision, the strongest desire from among the various desires present. Will does not refer to any particular
desire, but rather to the capacity to act decisively on one's desires. Within philosophy, the will is important
as one of the distinct parts of the mind, along with reason and understanding. It is considered important in
ethics because of its central role in enabling a person to act deliberately. Commonly, we think of will in the
active sense, of self-control, of working toward and attaining goals.

The German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer explained that when we become conscious of ourselves,
we recognize that our essential qualities are endless urging, craving, striving, wanting, and desiring. He
said that these are features of that which we call our will. According to him, will is the innermost essence,
the kernel, of every particular thing and also of the whole. It appears in every blindly acting force of nature,
and also in the deliberate conduct of man. He believed that the will is primary and uses knowledge to find
an object that will satisfy its craving.

A pertinent concept is that of willpower. It refers to the inner strength to make a decision, take action, and
handle and execute any aim or task until it is accomplished, regardless of inner and outer resistance,
discomfort, or difficulties. It bestows the ability to overcome laziness, temptations, and negative habits to
carry out actions even if they require effort and are unpleasant and tedious or contrary to one's habits.

03 Handout 1 *Property of STI

 student.feedback@sti.edu Page 4 of 6
 GE1705

Having moral courage and will means doing the right thing, which may include listening to our conscience.
Disregarding our conscience may lead to feelings of inadequacy, guilt, and diminished personal integrity.
For parents, using willpower usually demands to put aside compelling but momentary pleasures or comforts
to set a good example for their children.

Moral courage demands us to make judgments about what behaviorial acts are supportive of our ethical
ideologies or highest ideals, and which ones are destructive. Moral courage and will require us to recognize
our responsibilities be accountable to the consequences of our own actions.

Moral courage sounds like:

• "I believe strongly in ____ "
• "Let's volunteer."
• "Dad, I'm in trouble."
• "I am going to campaign for _____ "
• "It's not fair that ______”
• "I broke this, Mom. I'm sorry."
• "I'll march with you."
• "No, thanks, I don't want to hear a secret!"
• "You shouldn't talk behind his/her back."
• "You can depend on me."

On the other hand, lack of moral courage sounds like:

• "That's got nothing to do with me."
• "How could you do this to me?"
• "It's not for me to judge." (as a way to avoid personal responsibility)
• "I only did it once."
• "This is all your fault!"
• "Just let it slide."
• "There's no use trying to change the system; it's just too strong."
• “Nobody else is doing anything about it. So, why should I?”
• “I might get into trouble.”
• "She got what she deserved."

II. Developing Will and Moral Courage

The following are the tips or suggestions on how to develop will and moral courage:

• Develop and practice self-discipline.

The concept self-discipline involves the rejection of instant gratification in favor of something better. Ethically
applied, it may refer to the giving up of instant pleasure and satisfaction for a higher and better goal such
as executing a good rational moral decision.

Developing will and moral courage involves developing self-control. It includes nurturing the ability to stick
to actions, thoughts, and behavior, which lead to moral improvement and success. It encompasses
endowing the inner strength to focus all the energy on a moral goal and persevere until it is accomplished.

• Do mental strength training.

This method is never reserved for a few special people. One of the simplest and effective methods under
this mental strength training involves declining to satisfy unimportant and unnecessary desires.

Everybody is normally confronted and tempted by an endless stream of cravings and temptations; many of
which are not actually important desirable. By practicing to refuse to gratify every one of them, a person
becomes courageous and stronger.

03 Handout 1 *Property of STI

 student.feedback@sti.edu Page 5 of 6
 GE1705

The following are some examples mental strength training:

o Don’t open your social media account/s for a day or two (2).
o Drink water or juice, in spite of your desire to have a beer or liquor.
o Avoid chatting with your gossipy friend.
o Go to sleep an hour before earlier than usual for a week.
o Resist the desire to gamble.

Trainings like these add to the storehouse of one's inner strength. By following a methodical method of
training, a person can reach far, have control over oneself and one's life, realize ethical goals, improve
his/her life, and achieve satisfaction and peace of mind.

• Draw inspiration from people of great courage. People usually admire and respect courageous
persons who have won great success by manifesting discipline and will power. These include people in all
walks of life, who sheer will power and moral courage, overcame difficulties and hardships, improved their
moral life, advanced on the spiritual or moral path, and be worthy of imitation.

• Repeatedly do acts that exhibit moral courage and will. Practice makes perfect. If one wishes to
nurture the moral courage and will in him, he must strive to do the acts that manifest them whenever
opportunity allows it. Here are some examples of acts that exhibit moral courage and will:
a. helping someone push a car, even if it means being late
b. standing up to a bully on the playground
c. picking up litter
d. doing homework or chores without being reminded
e. refusing to listen to or repeat gossip
f. practicing what you preach, even when no one is looking or knows
g. turning in a toy or a wallet to the Lost and Found
h. giving all students an equal voice regardless of race, socioeconomic status, religion, gender, or
sexual orientation
i. becoming a company’s whistleblower risking job loss, financial cost, and or legal repercussion
j. reporting a crime
k. participating in a peaceful protest

• Avoid deeds that show lack of moral courage and will. This involves evading acts that show
irresponsibility, cowardice, apathy, rashness, imprudence, ill will, and wickedness. Here are some
examples of deeds that show lack of moral courage and will:
a. walking away from someone in need
b. taking more than your fair share
c. laughing at someone's misfortune
d. grabbing the spotlight from someone who has earned it
e. placing too much reliance on the letter rather than the spirit of the law
f. remaining silent in the face of wrong-doing or injustice
g. rationalizations or justifications for action/lack of action
h. being inconsistent or capricious with children
i. choosing sides after seeing which way the wind is blowing
j. breaking a promise
k. lying or cheating

References
Bulaong, O., Calano. M., & Lagliva, A. (2018). Ethics: Foundations of moral valuation. Sampaloc, Manila: Rex Book Store,
Inc.
Cariño, J. (2018). Fundamentals of ethics. Quezon City: C & E Publishing, Inc.
De Guzman, J. (2017). Ethics: Principles of ethical behavior in modern society. Malabon City: Mutya Publishing Houze, Inc.
Leaña, R. & Gubia A. (2018). Ethics for college students: CHED curriculum compliant. Intramuros, Manila: Mindshapers
Co., Inc.
Ocampo, M. (2018). Ethics primer: A young person’s guide to moral reasoning. Quezon City: Abiva Publishing House, Inc.

03 Handout 1 *Property of STI

 student.feedback@sti.edu Page 6 of 6