Republic of the Philippines

BOHOL ISLAND STATE UNIVERSITY

Main Campus
C.P.G. Avenue, Tagbilaran City, Bohol 6300
Vision : A premiere S & T University for the formation of a world – class and virtuous human resource for sustainable development of Bohol and the country.
Mission : BISU is committed to provide quality higher education in the arts and sciences, as well as in the professional and technological fields; undertake research and
development, and extension services for the sustainable development of Bohol and the country.

Module I – Introduction: Key Concepts

Lesson 2: Moral Experience, Moral Dilemma, Freedom, and Reason

Learning Objectives:
At the end of this lesson, the students should be able to:
1. recognize and recall a moral experience;
2. identify moral dilemmas and its three levels; and
3. explain why only human beings can be ethical.

Key Readings:
Free online learning materials in Ethics. https://philonotes.com/index.php/what-is-
moralexperience/
In this article, moral experience is distinguished from other kinds of experience. A moral
experience is said to be crucial than the latter experience. A heartbreaking experience of a
young lady due to cheating by her boyfriend during high school cannot easily be forgotten. It still
remains in her heart and mind when she grows older. However, this is not what we mean by
moral experience. Moral experience is extremely different. It is an experience of something
moral. Meaning, it is an experience which triggers our moral choices as we are called or ought
to make a moral response.

Introduction

When we speak of experience, what come naturally into our mind are the moments and
events from the past while we had been engrossed with intense feelings of enjoyment or grief.
During our childhood, the experience of receiving gifts in Christmas season entails so much fun.
But the quarrel of parents in front of us rendered much pain. When we grow into an adult
another clusters of experience reside into the chamber of our memory, but one thing is for sure,
what remains in the later years of our life are those experiences which affected greatly our
emotion. However, it does not mean that these lucidly remembered experiences are the most
valuable ones. There are those which are not fully remembered and yet add meanings to our
being or enhance our capability to be human. These are the experiences that we are laying
open to and make contact with the center of our being in order to increase our understanding on
 2

who we truly are as humans. In so far as the experience is ours and involves us actively and
individually or personally is considered to have a moral dimension.

Moral Experience
In dealing with human experiences having a moral dimension, this should not mean as
all experiences are essentially moral experiences. There is really a quality of being moral in the
latter that is not proper to all kinds of experience. To set moral experience apart from other
kinds of experience, it is better to begin with this question: How do we know that the experience
we have at the moment is a moral experience? It is indeed difficult to identify moral experience
without knowing first its distinct description. In outlining this concept itself we cannot do away
from committing circular classification. Van Tongeren, however, draws a substantially specific
meaning of moral experience as an experience of moral value during a circumstance when our
moral consciousness comes to play while we are called to make moral response (van
Tongeren, 1994). To have an in-depth understanding of this definition, we need to classify and
expound some relevant terms within it such as moral value, moral consciousness, and moral
response.

1) Moral value is an ontological quality in morality that can either be right or wrong, good
or bad. Moral value is not similar to other types of values because it entails moral
responsibility. Furthermore, other values are solely subjective as well as relative while
moral value can be objective. Values are subjective in a sense that the value itself is
usually dependent on the subject (human agent). Money, for instance, is valuable but its
value is not inherent to it, rather, the value of money comes from the one who values it.
On the contrary, only in the context of moral value that value can be objective. It is
because the value here is dependent on the object, or it may be safe to say, it is
independent from the subject. To be honest and truthful is at all times valuable in itself
because no person can classify it as valuable or non-valuable. In terms of value’s
practical effect to a human person, other values as well are distinct from the moral value.
The former values (e.g. money and fame) do not define a person as morally good or
bad. Only moral value measures the human action as human and the person as person.
Thus, it is the one that makes human her identity as being a person. If a moral agent
acts like the ruthless brutes (other forms of animals), then within the sphere of moral
value, her action can be determined as bad. As a consequence, the agent would lose
her identity as human person. But if this agent is doing the right and good action, then
her being as human person remains.

2) Moral consciousness comes to play in person’s sense of good and bad, right and
wrong. It is the consciousness of moral standards which direct the individual’s course of
action. It directs towards the good and right. It must be noted, however, that, at this
juncture, moral standards are crucial with regard to what good and right they contained.
That is why factors (e.g. culture, religion, etc.) that conditioned the mindset of a person
are significant in shaping moral standards which would be the model for our moral
consciousness. These factors have established frames in our mind that may affect our
ways of viewing and responding to moral situations and moral decisions.
 3

3) Moral response is action-oriented. In the verge of a moral situation, we have the sense
that we are bound to respond, to respond personally and rightly. According to De
Finance (1991), “the demands of morality do not allow for holidays or strategic retreat
[and in it] no one can take [one’s] place in attaining the value [that one is] called upon to
achieve”. This is to say that a moral response is always a response in the “here and
now”. This is quick choice of the morally good act in responding the call within the
sphere of moral experience. And this is personal because no one can ask another to
make a moral choice for her except herself. In this context, freedom is indeed necessary.
Moral response has required freedom in one’s voluntary and deliberate choice in order
to achieve the good and right and to avoid evil and wrong actions beyond the influence
of some conditioning factors like culture, religion and the like.

Fig 2: The Diagram of Moral Experience and its Elements

Moral
Consciousness

Moral Value Moral Moral Response

Experience

Let us try to contemplate these questions:

- How moral standards become relevant in our moral experience?
- Can we still morally respond (do good and avoid evil) when we are called to help
our classmates or neighbors who are in need, may it be financially, emotionally,
or morally? Or can we avoid the temptation of owning a property or money
which is not really ours or not intended to be ours?

Moral Dilemma
A dilemma is a situation in which a person is entangled and torn between two or more
conflicting choices. Say for instance, Maria wants to go to the mall at the very moment but her
mother asks her to clean the entire surroundings in their house. Maria doesn’t want to do the
 4

task because this time she already expects to have leisure at the mall. The mother insists and
will only allow Maria to go to the mall after the latter finished the task. But the problem is that the
mall will close one hour later, while cleaning the house will last for two hours. And if she will not
clean the house she won’t be given allowance that covers the entire next week’s classes. Now,
she doesn’t have a better choice than to pick one of which both she doesn’t want, either she will
clean or go to mall but pay a regrettable consequence of having no allowance for a week,.
Indeed, there are times we have encountered dilemmas which provide us struggle in seeking for
solutions. But after all effort has exerted, we still find ourselves losing due to the unavoidably
undesirable choices we had taken at those moments. Some of those are moral dilemmas which
might be ignored and have not been given emphatic attention.
Then what is a moral dilemma? Moral dilemma takes no extreme difference in meaning
compared to common or ordinary dilemma. What distinguishes moral dilemma from other kinds
of dilemma are the moral requirements attached to the former’s inevitably unwanted options. In
such case, an individual agent is obliged to choose either of the two or more options and to act
on it. Obviously, in order for a dilemma to be properly called a moral dilemma, it must contain
three compounding constituents such as: the agent; the obligation to choose one of the options
and act on it; and the action chosen by the moral agent should only be one. For example, Mario
has a psychopathic friend named Pedro whose secret intention is to kill at least one person in a
day. One day, Mario actually caught Pedro who is about to stab a common friend with a knife.
At the very moment, Mario is at the back of Pedro and is holding an axe. Supposedly, he will
use the axe to cut some pieces of woods in the backyard. But Mario has enough distance to
strike Pedro with the axe in order to stop the latter’s evil intention, that is, to kill their friend.
What should Mario do in this actual situation? Now, a clear moral dilemma is impending in this
case. First, if he will hit the head of Pedro using the axe to stop Pedro’s intent of killing their
friend, Mario will surely be morally responsible for killing Pedro. In fact, killing is intrinsically evil.
Second option, if he will not kill Pedro, Pedro might kill their friend or might kill him instead. In
relation to the second option, if Mario runs and lets Pedro kills their friend, then the former is
morally responsible for not helping a friend and to stop the possible killing. In this situation,
hence, any courses of action Mario will take he is predestined to commit mistake because the
situation already allows him to necessarily choose one among the two undesirable options.
Since Mario is entangled in a moral dilemma, he is bound to act one of the evil options because
that is the moral requirement of a moral agent like him. This is indeed the distinct nature of
moral dilemma; that a moral agent is fated to be deprived to do what she ought to do (do good
and avoid evil) because the choices offered to him are all bad. Although the situation of moral
dilemma requires no ‘priority option,’ however, an agent can still hope that he can accidentally
choose the least morally evil act, since after all, there is no good act can be chosen.

Classifications of Moral Dilemma

Many moral theorists argue about the truth about moral dilemmas, whether it is possible
or not. Subsequently, they agree on its possibility and even find out that moral dilemmas have
two classifications. These classifications are the following:
 5

1) Genuine moral dilemma is a kind of dilemma which consists neither of the possible
courses of action be more important than the other. The suitable example for this
classification has already been presented above.

2) False moral dilemma is otherwise known as ‘fake’ dilemma. Hence, it is not of any kind
a dilemma since one of the agent’s seemingly conflicting moral obligations takes priority
over the other. In this dilemma, there is a tendency for the agent to be selective and
choose an option that seems to prevail over that other. This example may help us
conceive certainly a false dilemma. A father who is supposedly the major breadwinner in
the family is certainly obligated to feed his children. But he doesn’t have a job. Besides,
he can’t work for a long duration due to his lazy and troublesome attitudes in the
workplace. That is why he plans to rob a store in order to fulfill this prime obligation. Let
us analyze the dilemma and see how it becomes false. First option, if he will rob the
store to provide food for his children, he will be morally responsible for taking others’
property without the latter’s consent; thus, it is equivalent to stealing which is in
intrinsically evil. Second option, if he will not rob the store, he will remain to be
irresponsible for neglecting his duty as the head of the family. Third or final option, if he
will take a job, then he will surely meet trouble because of his unpreventable bad
attitudes. If we notice, the third option is loosely inconsistent to be part of the entire
dilemmatic situation. In fact, to decide to work cannot be bad in any respect because it is
already good in itself. It is quite clear in this option that only the succeeding
circumstances might put the father into morally at risk. In fact, he has still can choose to
change his attitudinal problem. In the opposite side, even though the father decides not
to work, choosing to work remains to be an option in this kind of situation. Therefore,
whether the father chooses to work or not as his third option, this would not be counted
as a valid option in a moral dilemma. And even if we will terminate the third option, the
dilemmatic situation still contains a loophole because, though hidden, to work is yet a
necessary option in such case. It is at all times the moral response for this father in order
to live up to his responsibility with his family.
To sum up, the obvious distinctive quality of a false moral dilemma is the existence of a
possible good option by the agent whereby it is impossible to be found in a genuine moral
dilemma. Thus, it would not be too difficult to postulate that a false moral dilemma can be a
moral experience or just closely identical to it. This is for the reason that, in the moral
experience, it follows that one is encountering a seemingly dilemmatic sense. Despite the
presence of moral value and moral consciousness, the agent in this situation has a chance to
choose evil as she is still entangled between two opposing options or choices (good or evil). In
like manner, in a false dilemma, the agent has also accompanied by good and evil options.

Please proceed to this link for a follow up reading: https://philonotes.com/index.php/2018/06/10/

moraldilemmas/#:~:text=There%20are%20several%20types%20of,agent%20and%20multi
%2Dperson%20dilemmas.

Freedom-Responsibility for One’s Act and to Others as the Foundation of Morality

 6

It is an undebatable reality that every morally capable human being can freely choose
between right or wrong and good or bad actions. Because of this freedom, we, as moral agents
have the prime decision on what course of action we have to take. So to speak, each moral
agent has the freedom to choose either of the good or bad, the right or wrong course of action.
But the question is: Is human freedom absolute? In the context of ethics as discipline, freedom
cannot be absolute because attached to it is our responsibility to decide justly and reasonably.
This is to mean that though morality presupposes our capability of choosing either of the
opposing poles (right or wrong, good or bad), we are obliged, at all moral circumstances (or
experiences), to choose solely the good and right and must avoid the evil and wrong.

This is why freedom is called the foundation of morality since in this freedom that a
moral agent can turn out to be responsible. This is to say that one can be responsible for her
own actions that involve consequential impact to others. Because one is responsible of her own
actions, then she is morally accountable. In this sense, responsibility does not only oblige a
person to do good and right but also require her to be liable for the evil and wrong actions
committed. Therefore, every moral agent is required to face the consequences of the immorality
we have done.
Freedom makes us different from other forms of animals like the brutes (as known to be
nearest mammals to a human kind). Like humans, the brutes are capable of kinesis,
physiologically sensitive, and hunt for food when hungry and look for water when thirsty. But
unlike us, brutes’ actions are only restricted to their biological and instinctive needs. A human
person, however, can go beyond these needs. She can even replace these instinctive needs in
with an upright purpose; that is, to share food to other person despite the intense hunger she
experiences at the moment.
Undoubtedly, animals do not have moral liabilities unlike human beings. As they are
wholly determined by their naturally biological inclinations, they are considered to have no
freedom. This is the primary reason why they are not bound to be morally responsible. For
instance, a dog which snatched a piece of burger in a food chain cannot be morally liable or
accused with stealing. On the contrary, a person who intentionally killed another person is
always morally accountable. In brief, only a person can become morally responsible because
embedded to her is the freedom to act or to suspend the act. And this freedom is constantly
accompanied by intellect or the ability to reason.

Reason and Impartiality: The Minimum Requirement for Morality

In the framework of ethics, reason or intellect is the fundamental means of a human
being in her pursuit for universal moral principle or to really apprehend the universal good and
right. Though it is not really that explicit in their works, many ethicists have agreed that human
beings in general coincide in apprehending the universal moral precepts or standards. Say, to
steal or take the property owned by other without the latter’s consent is immoral or bad while to
share a piece of bread or food to a hungry fellow is good. This is a glaring example how human
beings living in this planet presuppose it as a manner of principle or a common belief. If we
notice this belief is not obviously presented, however, it still remains to be an indubitable
 7

presumption that our common intellectual or rational justification is always attuned with this
belief.
In view of the aforementioned, we need to elaborate reason and its relation to our
attunement towards universal principles via Kant’s Categorical Imperative which serves as the
basis for one’s morally appropriately acceptable or disgracefully undesirable actions. In other
words, it functions as the weighing entity which determines that an individual is free from any
personal or external interest in doing a willful act that subsequently affect the other(s). This
particular Kantian paradigm (as imperative) is even recognized by several ethicists as well as
legislative bodies as reliable because of its complementariness to our common principle.
Moreover, because of this imperative, the later moral theorists are more motivated to reconsider
impartiality as a specific ground which categorizes humans as rational beings. In these present
times, impartiality even becomes central to our moral justifiability. That our morally justifiable
decisions should be based on objective criteria rather than on biased or prejudiced excuses just
to hold a single person’s benefit over the others. Today, legal systems in different States in
general affix their mandated laws within the context of impartiality. In fact, any rules which
render a privilege to only one person over another is usually viewed as erroneous; thus,
questionable and would even lose its moral sense.

QUIZ 2

(To be submitted at Google Classroom)

INSTRUCTION: Discuss your answer in a minimum of 20 or in a maximum of 30

sentences. Please answer every question sensibly and, most of all, genuinely (meaning,
in your own originality). Therefore, avoid rewriting words/texts from the modules and
copying from your classmate(s) or from the internet.

1. What is a moral experience? Recall an event which you were entangled with
moral experience. Does your moral experience involve a moral dilemma? If you
answer either YES or NO, explain why? How did you respond to that certain
situation, did you choose to be good or to be bad, to be right or to be wrong?
Do you believe you exercise freedom and you’re guided by reason/intellect in
that choice of yours? If you answer either YES or NO, explain why?