WORKSHEET for Moral Deliberation

Minimum Requirement of Morality

Step 1. Identifying and setting up the Ethical Problem

What is the ethical problem? The issue – it helps to be able to state or define, succinctly,
the ethical issue involved in the case and to make sure that this is not confused with other
elements of the problem. (Per-haps the ethical problem can be stated in one or two sen-tences–
very much like a thesis statement that defines the problem to be tackled.)

Step 2. What are the relevant facts?

What immediate facts have the most bearing on the ethical decision that must be made in
this case? Include any potential economic, social, or political pressures.

Step3. Who are the stakeholders?

Note: It is important to identify the stake-holders who will be affected by the ethical decision to
be made. It will also help to identify the corresponding obligations that one has toward the
various stakeholders.

Step 4. What are the available options?

It is important to list down at least three. As Aristotle remarks, there are at least two, and
these two often represent the extremes. No-thing is ever either black or white; sometimes one is
forced to think in terms of a compromise, even if that compromise doesn’t exactly conform to
your personal notion of what is the right thing to do. It is at this stage that reason struggles to
transcend what we feel.

What benefits and what harms will each option produce, and which alternative will lead to the
best overall consequence? (Utilitarianism)
● What moral rights do the affected parties have, and which option best respects those rights?
(Kant)
● Which course of action advances the common good?
● Which decision enables me to be and act in ways that develop my highest potential as a
person? (Virtue)
● Which option treats everyone the same, except where there is a morally justifiable reason not
to, and does not show favoritism or discrimination? (Justice and Fairness)
Determine the most appropriate action

On the basis of the evaluation done on the various options, we must determine the best course of
action – the moral thing to do. Ethicists claim that this is the most difficult part of the process of
moral decision-making. It requires courage – especially when reason suggests one way and what
we feel another way.

Double-checking the Decision

Second, we must also ask if our arguments are both valid and sound. A valid argument is one
whose premises logically entail its conclusion. An invalid argument on the other hand is one
whose premises do not entail its conclusion. In an invalid argument, one can accept the premises
as true and reject the conclusion without any contradiction. A sound argument, on the other hand,
has true premises and valid reasoning. An unsound argument employs invalid reasoning or has
at least one false premise.
Third, perhaps we can ask the following questions:
What are the best and worse-case scenarios if I choose this particular option?
Can I honestly live with myself if I make this decision?
Will I be able to defend this decision to that claimant who has lost the most or been harmed the
most?

CHED-ADZU NGECCT 2.0 TRAINING MAY8-26 2017 Page 1

Double-checking the Decision
\Ought” expresses the objective pole of morality. This imperative is what ethical reflection tries
to uncover. Such reflections yield statements of right and wrong, such as “euthanasia is wrong”
and “keeping promises is right.”
“Can” expresses the subjective pole of a person’s capacity to choose right or wrong. . . . There is
a limit to what can be done by each person at each time in order to live truthfully,
compassionately, and respectfully of self and others. To refuse to accept this is to demand perfect
love from imperfect creatures.
We are still on the way to the full flowering of love. (Richard M. Gula, SS, Moral Discernment
(New York: Paulist Press, 1997)
1) Moral judgments must be backed by good reasons: We must avoid making judgments on the
basis of feelings alone. "Morality is, first and foremost, a matter of consulting reason: the
morally right thing to do is determined by what there are the best reasons for doing." How do we
evaluate arguments then? First, we should get our facts straight. Second, moral
theories/principles should be brought into play. In other words, these function to justify (not
rationalize) our actions and decisions.

Requirement of Impartiality. (Requirement of justice?) Each individual's interests are equally

important, i.e., there are no "privileged" people.

CHED-ADZU NGECCT 2.0 TRAINING MAY8-26 2017 Page 2