Module 2 & Module 3

GE 8 - ETHICS
THE MORAL
AGENT
MODULE TWO
COMPILED BY CELENIA M. AGAS 17 | P a g e

AGAS
INTRODUCTION
A moral agent is someone who is capable of distinguishing good from evil and
holding himself or herself accountable for his or her actions. Moral agents have a
moral obligation to refrain from causing unjustifiable damage.
Historically, moral agency has been reserved for individuals who can be held
accountable for their acts. Children and people with various mental disorders may
lack or lack the ability to act morally. Adults with full mental ability only surrender
moral agency in severe circumstances, such as being kept captive.
By requiring individuals to act morally, we hold them accountable for the harm they
inflict on others.
As a result, do businesses possess moral agency? Will robots gain moral agency as
artificial intelligence advances? And what about non-human creatures with social
intelligence, such as dolphins and elephants?
Indeed, future philosophers and legal academics will be required to evaluate moral
agency in light of these and other circumstances.
LEARNING OUTCOMES:
1. Articulate what culture means
2. Attribute facets of personal behavior to culture
3. Recognize differences in the moral behavior of different cultures
4. Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of cultural relativism
5. Analyze crucial qualities of the Filipino moral identity in their own moral
experiences
6. Evaluate elements that need to be changed
LESSON 2A: Culture and Moral
 LEARNING OBJECTIVES:
Upon completion of the course, the student should be able to:
1. Demonstrate your understanding of culture
2. Attribute aspects of one's conduct to culture Recognize cultural
distinctions in moral behavior
3. Assess the relative merits and demerits of cultural relativism.
4. Analyze critical components of the Filipino moral identity via the lens of
their own moral experiences.
5. Determine which components require modification.

AGAS
 CONTENT EXPLORATION:
THE MORAL AGENT
DEVELOPING VIRTUE AS A HABIT
Moral character refers to the existence or lack of virtues such as integrity,

courage fortitude, honesty, and loyalty.
To say that a certain person has a good moral character means that
he/she is a good person and a good citizen with a sound moral compass.
MORAL CHARACTER AND VIRTUES
The term ‘character is derived from the Greek word ‘charakter’ which
means initially used as a mark impressed upon a coin. Which later chiefly known
as the assemblage of qualities that distinguish one person from another. This stress
on the distinctiveness of individuality tends to merge ‘character’ with personality
in modern usage or habits of dress, we might say that ‘he has a personality or that
he is quite a character.
The Greek philosopher Aristotle tells us that there are two distinct human
excellences, 1) excellences of thought and 2) excellences of character. The
phase of moral character is often translated as ‘moral virtues and moral
excellences. In Greek, ethics is the adjective cognate of character.
So, when we speak of a ‘virtue’ or excellence of moral character, the

highlight is on the blend of qualities that make a person the sort of ethically
admirable individual he/she is. Philosophers also think that moral character traits,
the moral agent are responsible for having the moral character trait itself or for
the outcome of the trait.
THE CIRCULAR RELATIONS OF ACTS AND CHARACTER
In the process of moral development, there is a circular relation between

‘acts that build character’ and ‘moral character’ itself. Not all acts help build
moral character, but those acts which emanate from moral characters certainly
matter in moral development. Hence, a person’s actions determine his/her moral
character, but the moral character itself generates that help in developing either
virtue or vice.

AGAS
It means moral development is in the sense of moral flourishing. This
flourishing is attained by the habitual practice of moral and intellectual
excellence, or virtues. And acting in line with virtues is acting following reason,
which is the activity characteristic of human beings. In this sense, the Greek
moralists believe, virtuous acts complete or perfect human life.
Aristotle reminds though that it is not easy to define in rules ‘which acts
deserve moral praise and blame, and that, these matters require the judgment
of the virtuous person, that is, someone with good moral character
SIX STAGES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT
The American psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg (1927-1987) is best known

for his theory of stages of moral development. He believed that people can only
pass through these levels in the order listed. Each new stage replaces the kind of
reasoning typical of the previous stage. Some do not achieve all the stages.
LEVEL 1 – Pre-conventional Morality

Stage 1. Obedience and Punishment Orientation
Stage 2. Individualism and Exchange
LEVEL 2 – Conventional Morality
Stage 3. Good interpersonal Relationship
Stage 4. Maintaining the Social Order
LEVEL 3 – Post Conventional Morality
Stage 5. Social Contract and Individual Rights
Stage 6. Universal Principles
GETTING TO THE HIGHEST LEVEL, CONSCIENCE-BASED MORAL

DECISIONS
Another way to view Kohlberg’s stages when combined with Swiss clinical
psychologist Jean Piaget’s (1896-1980) theory of moral development is as follows:
Stage 1 – Respect for Power and Punishment
A young child (age 1-5) chooses what to do – what is right –

according to what he/she wants to do and can do without getting into trouble.
In this level, to be right, one ought to be obedient to the people in power and,
thus avoid punishment. Motto: “might makes right”.

AGAS
Stage 2 – Looking or for #1
Children (age 5-10) are disposed to be egoistic or self-serving. They

lack the respect of other’s rights but may give to others on the assumption that
they will get as much or even more in turn. Instead of loyalty, gratitude, or justice,
the case is more a matter of ‘you scratch my back and I’ll scratch you.” Motto:
“What’s in it for me?”
Stage 3 – Being a “Good Boy or Nice Girl”
In this stage, people (age 8-16) have shifted from pleasing

themselves to pleasing important others, usually parents, teachers, or friends. They
seek to conform to some else’s expectations. When charged with doing
something wrong, their behavior is likely to be justified by stating “everyone else is
doing it” or “I didn’t intend to hurt anyone”. Motto: “I want to be nice.”
Stage 4 – Law and order thinking
Here, the majority of people (16 years old and older) have
internalized society’s rules about how to behave. They ell indebted to conform,
no longer to just family and friends, but also society’s laws and customs. They
realized that it is important to do one’s duty to maintain social order. Social
leaders are assumed to be right and social rules are adopted without considering
the core moral principles involved. Thus, social control in this stage is exercised
through guild associated with breaking a rule; though the guild, in this case, is an
automatic emotional response, not a rational reaction of conscience based on
moral principles. In this stage, individuals believe that anyone breaking the rules
deserves to be punished and ‘pay his/her debt to society. Motto: “I’ll do my duty.”
Stage 5 – Justice through democracy
In this stage, people understand the underlying moral purposes that

are supposed to be served by laws and social customs. When a law in democracy
ceases to serve a good purpose, they thus feel the people ought to get active
and change the law. Understood in this manner, democracy is seen as a social
contract whereby everybody tries constantly to construct a set of laws that best
serves most people while protecting the basic rights of everybody. Respect for
the law and a sense of obligation to live by the rule represents, as long as rules
were established Legally and fulfill a moral purpose. It is said that only 20-25% of
today’s adults ever reach this stage and most of those that do supposedly only
get there after their mid-twenties. Motto: “I’ll live by the rules or try to change
them.”

AGAS
Stage 6 – Deciding on basic moral principles by which you will live their
lives and relate to everybody fairly
In this stage, rare people have evaluated many values and have
rationally chosen a philosophy of life that truly guides their life. Morally developed,
they do not automatically conform to tradition or other’s beliefs, and even to their
own emotions, intuition, or impulsive notions about right and wrong. In stage 6,
individuals judiciously elect fundamental principles to follow, such as caring for
the respecting every living thing, feeling that people are all equal and thus
deserve equal opportunities, or subscribing to the Golder Rules. They are tough
enough to act on their values even if others may think they are odd or if their
beliefs are against man’s law, such as refusing to fight in a war. Social control is
exercised thru guilt associated with the rational reaction of conscience based on
moral principles. Reaching this stage is thus seen, at least in Kohlberg and Piaget’s
theories, as to the highest level, conscience-based moral decisions.
Summary of Kohlberg’s Theory
Level Age Range Stage Nature of Moral Reasoning

Level 1: Seen in preschool Stage 1:People make decisions based on
Preconventional children, most Punishment- what is best for themselves, without
Morality elementary school avoidance regard for other’s needs or feelings.
students, some and They obey rules only if established
junior high school obedience by more powerful individuals; they
students, and a may disobey if they aren’t likely to
few high school get caught. “Wrong” behaviors are
students those that will be punished.
Stage 2: People recognize that others also
Exchange of have needs. They may try to satisfy
favors others’ needs if their own needs are
also (“you scratch my back, I’ll
scratch yours”). They continue to
define right and wrong primarily in
terms of consequences to
themselves.
Level II: Seem in a few Stage 3: People make decisions based on
Conventional older elementary Good what actions will please others,
Morality school students, boy/girl especially authority figures and
some junior high other individuals with high status
school students, (e.g., teachers, popular peers). They
and many high are concerned about maintaining
school students relationships through sharing, trust,
(Stage4 typically and loyalty, and they take others

AGAS
does not appear people’s perspectives and
until the high intentions into account when
school years) making decisions.
Stage 4: Law People look to society as a whole for
and Order guidelines about right or wrong.
They know rules are necessary for
keeping society running smoothly
and believe it is their “duty” to obey
them. However, they perceive rules
to be inflexible; they don’t
necessarily recognize that as
society’s needs change, rules
should change as well.
Level II: Rarely seen before Stage 5: People recognize that rules
Postconventional college (Stage 6 is Social represent agreements among
Morality extremely rare Contract many individuals about appropriate
even in adults) behavior. Rules are seen as
potentially useful mechanisms that
can maintain the general social
order and protect individual rights,
rather than as absolute dictates
that must be obeyed simply
because they are “the law.” People
also recognize the flexibility of rules;
rules that no longer severe society’s
best interests can and should be
changed.
Stage 6: Stage 6 is a hypothetical, “ideal”
Universal stage that few people ever reach.
ethical People in this stage adhere to a few
principle abstracts, universal principles (e.g.,
equality of all people, respect for
human dignity, commitment to
justice) that transcend specific
norms and rules. The answer to a
strong inner conscience and
willingly disobeys laws that violate
their ethical principles.

AGAS
Learning Activity
DIRECTION: In a letter-size bond paper, do the following activities and submit it
online on our Google Classroom on the prescribed submission date.
ACTIVITY 1: IDENTIFICATION
Direction: On a letter-size bond paper, write your answer to the question below.
1. Name some skills required to be a moral agent.
EXERCISE 1: The Runaway Train: A "thought experiment"
Imagine you are standing on a bridge over two narrow ravines, each with rail
tracks at its base. In the distance you see a runaway train speeding along
the tracks. It is heading towards the first ravine in which there are five people.
You cannot stop or slow the train, but you are standing next to a lever, which
you can pull to switch the train to the tracks heading into the second ravine.
Unfortunately, there is one person in the second ravine.
You have two options:
(a) Do nothing (the train will kill the five people in the first ravine) or
(b) Pull the lever to diver the train (this will kill one person in the second
ravine).

AGAS
Answer the following questions
1. Which option do you choose? option a | option b

2. Select one statement from the list below that most closely reflects your
values
a. Five lives are more important than one life. 
b. One life is just as important as five lives. 
c. What matters is not what I do but whether I am virtuous. 
d. All moral wrongs and rights are just a matter of opinion. 
e. None of the above 


3. Further information
Now imagine that you are still on the bridge. You do not have mobile phone
access or any other method of communicating for help. The people on
both tracks can shout to you.
Setting your previous decision aside, for each of the six statements below,
please tick the box to show if you would pull/not pull the lever if you had
only that ONE piece of extra information.
I would I would
Statement pull the not pull
lever the lever
A. The person in the second ravine asks you to
divert the train to avoid killing the five in the  
first ravine.
B. The five people in the first ravine ask you not
 
to divert the train to the second ravine.
C. The five people in the first ravine are
convicted criminals, and the person in the
 
second ravine is a world-famous cancer
specialist on the verge of a breakthrough.

AGAS
D. The five people in the first ravine are a team
of world-famous cancer specialists on the
 
verge of a breakthrough, and the person in
the second ravine is a convicted criminal.
E. The five people in the ravine are in a
permanent vegetative state (i.e., so brain-
damaged they are considered permanently  
unaware of the world), and the person in the
second ravine is not brain-damaged.
F. The five people in the first ravine are not
brain-damaged, and the person in the
 
second ravine is in a permanent vegetative
state.
3. Explain your reasoning

AGAS
REFERENCES
Christen M, Van Schalk C, Fischer J, Huppenbauet M, Tanner C. Empirically informed

ethics: Morality between facts and norms. Switzerland: Springer International
Publishing; 2014
Fry S, Veatch R, Taylor C. Case Studies in Nursing Ethics. 4th edition. Sudbury, MA: Jones
& Barlett Learning; 2010
Haghighat S, Borhani F, Ranjbar H. Is there a relationship between moral competencies

and the formation of professional identity among nursing students? BMC Nurs.
2020; 19:49.
Jensen GM, Royeen C, Swisher LL, The Critical Role of Professional Identity Formation
and Moral Agency,
Kohlberg, L. The Development of Modes of Thinking and Choices in Years 10 to 16.

Chicago: University of Chicago. 1958
Kohlberg, L. The Psychology of Moral Development: The Nature and Validity of Moral
Stages (Essays on Moral Development). volume 2. Harper & Row, 1984.
Ma HK. The moral development of the child: an integrated model. Frontiers in public
health. 2013; 18(1): https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2013.00057
Mathes, Eugene. An evolutionary perspective on Kohlberg’s theory of moral

development. Current Psychology. 2019:1-14.
Mc Combs School of Business. Texas: Ethics unwrapped.

https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/moral-agent (accessed 29 July
2019)
McAndrew NS, Leske J, Schroeter K. Moral distress in critical care nursing: The state of
the science. Nurs Ethics. 2018;25(5):552-70.
Morley G, Ives J, Bradbury-Jones C, Irvine F. What is 'moral distress'? A narrative synthesis

of the literature. Nurs Ethics. 2019;26(3):646-62.
Narvaez D, Lapsley DK. The psychological foundations of everyday morality and moral
expertise. Character psychology and character education. 2005; 28:140-65.
Oxford Dictionaries, Oxford University Press,

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/moral (accessed 17 Apr 2018)
Triezenberg HL, Davis CM. Beyond the Code of Ethics: Educating Physical Therapists for
their Role as Moral Agents. Journal of Physical Therapy Education. 2000;14(3):48- 58
Young PD, Rushton CH. A concept analysis of moral resilience. Nurs Outlook.
2017;65(5):579-87.

AGAS
GE 8 - ETHICS
THE ACT: FEELINGS

AND MORAL
DECISION-
MAKING MODULE THREE

AGAS
INTRODUCTION
There are at least two theories in ethics that give focus on the role of feelings on
morality. They are (1) Ethical Subjectivism and (2) Emotivism. But before discussing
and analyzing these two theories let us deal first with the view that feelings are
instinctive and trained responses to moral dilemmas.
LEARNING OUTCOMES:
1. Identify a pivotal moral moment
2. Explain the connection between individual acts and character
3. Identify and describe the stages of moral growth.
4. Compare their progress to the stages of development in three examples.
5. Identify moral dilemma responses
6. Distinguish between logical and emotional responses.
7. Compare rational and emotional reactions
8. Reliability and impartiality are checked against the 7-step methodology in
real-life scenarios.
9.
LESSON 3: Culture and Moral
 LEARNING OBJECTIVES:
Upon completion of the course, the student should be able to:
1. Recall a defining moment in their moral formation
2. Explain the relationship between individual acts and character
3. Identify and articulate each stage of moral development
4. Check their personal growth and three other cases, against the stages of
development
5. Recall responses to moral dilemmas
6. Differentiate responses based on reason and those based on feelings
7. Compare reasonable and emotional responses
8. Check real-life cases against the 7-step model, a model that user’s reason
and impartiality.
 CONTENT EXPLORATION:
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

AGAS
necessary in ethical judgment as they are even deemed by some as instinctive
and trained responses to moral dilemmas.
Some hold that reason and emotion are not opposites. Both abstract inference
and emotional intuitions or instincts are seen as having relative roles in ethical
thinking. For one thing, feelings or emotions are said to be judgments about the
accomplishment of one’s goals. Emotions, it is circumstance or agent
accomplishes appropriate objectives. Feelings are also visceral or instinctual by
motivating acts 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.
FEELINGS AS OBSTACLES TO MAKING THE RIGHT DECISIONS
Feelings and emotions, however, can become obstacles or impediments

to becoming ethical. This is the case especially when feelings’ roles in ethics are
misinterpreted or exaggerated. So as a way of providing this, let us discuss the two
famous (but erroneous) feeling-based theories in ethics.
ETHICAL SUBJECTIVISM. This theory utterly runs contrary to the principle that
morality is objective. Fundamentally a meta-ethical theory, ethical subjectivism 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 bears,’ Ethical

subjectivism holds that the truth or falsity of ethical propositions is dependent on
the feelings, attitudes, or standards of a person or group of persons. Contrary to
the belief that morality is about objective facts, this theory states that moral
judgments simply describe our personal feelings.
For every controversial topic, say homosexuality or abortion, we usually

hear at least two opposing views concerning the matter. One camp which
declares that the action is immoral may express its stand by saying that God hates
it, or that it is unethical or that does 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

AGAS
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, 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 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 something is morally

good, this just means 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’)
simple 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 more subtle 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.
The theory states that moral judgments express positive negative feelings.
“X is right” merely means “Hooray for x” – and “X is immoral” just means “Boo on
X” Since ethical judgments are essentially commanding 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.
In denying moral truth and moral knowledge, some emotivists base their
stance on logical positivism, which claims that any legitimate truth claims but can
only express feelings.
To understand how the theory views moral judgments, it would help to note
that language is used in a variety of ways. Principally, language is used to state
facts or what we believe to be facts. Thus, we may say, “Marcos was President of
the Philippines, “Gasoline costs Php 50 per liter,” and “Jose Rizal is the author of

AGAS
Noli Me Tangere.” In each case, we are saying something either true or false, and
the purpose of our utterance is, typically, to convey information to the listener.
But there are other purposes for which language may be used. Suppose
one says, “Close the door!” This utterance is neither true nor false. It is not a
statement of any kind but a command. Its purpose is not to convey information
but to get one to do something. In giving you a command, I am not trying to alter
beliefs; instead, I am trying to influence your conduct.
Aside from commands, the following utterances are also not statementing
of fact: “Hurrah for Marcos!”; “Boo on the price of gasoline!”; and” Alright Pepe!”
None of these can be true or false – it would make no sense to say, “It is true that
hurrah for Marcos” or “It is false that boo on the price of gasoline.” Note that these
sentences are not used to state facts. Instead, they are used to express the
speaker’s attitudes.
Now, we also need the difference between reporting an attitude and

expressing the same attitude. If I say “I like Marcos,” I am reporting the fact that I
have a positive attitude toward him. The statement is a statement of fact, which
is either true or false. On the other hand, if I shout “Hurrah for Marcos!” I am not
stating any sort of fact, not even a fact about my attitudes. I am rather expressing
an attitude, but not reporting that I have it.
With these points in mind, let us turn our attention to ethical sentences.
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
entirely different purposes. Emotivism claims that they have two 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!”
So there lies the difference between Emotivism and Subjectivism.

Subjectivism interprets ethical sentences as statements of fact, particularly as
reports of the speaker’s attitude. In subjectivisms, when John says “Hazing is
immoral,” this is the same as “I (John) disapprove of hazing”. It is therefore seen
as a statement of fact about John’s attitude, which could be true or false.

AGAS
Emotivism, on the other hand, denies that John’s utterance states any fact
at all, even a fact about him. Instead, John’s utterance is viewed as equivalent
to something such as (1) “Hazing – yecch!” and (2) “Do not participate in hazing”.
EVALUATING EMOTIVISM. It is barely sensible to base a moral theory on

logical positivism as this view has been abandoned and rejected by philosophers.
For one thing, logical positivism is self-• refuting as the view is not itself verifiable by
sense experience and thus would not be a genuine truth claim on its grounds. It is
thus unsurprising that Emotivism, too, is prone to serious criticism.
Emotivism provides morality with insufficient explanations. In denting moral

truths and moral knowledge, it seems to dilute what morality is instead of
elucidating it. It is also unclear how the ‘ethical good’ can be reasonably
reducible to a mere exclamation.
In effect, Emotivism suggests that in ethical disputes, we cannot appeal to

reason but only to emotion. Without a doubt, this could bring about anarchy. The
theory could be propaganda wards in which all parties involved, not minding to
resort to reason, would simply try to manipulate the feelings or emotions of the
opponents. Emotivism is thus against our basic knowledge that is favorable if
opposing groups instead judiciously deliberate about their ethical differences
and resorts to reasons to resolve them.
Emotivism also fails to distinguish moral judgments from mere expressions of

personal preferences. For an utterance to become a genuine moral or value
judgment, it must be supported by pertinent reasons. That is, if someone tells us
that a certain action is immoral, we 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.
This spells the difference between 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 that is a statement about his 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.
Having logical positivist, Emotivism should be construed, however, as

completely removing people’s feelings, taste, emotion, liking, and the like in the

AGAS
sphere of morality. Admittedly, there are situations in which our feelings and likings
are relevant to the rightness of our decisions and actions. In selecting a course to
take, a job to assume, and especially a person to marry, we wonder how one’s
decision can be right without at least considering our feeling, taste, and
preference.
THE CIRCULAR RELATIONS OF ACTS AND CHARACTER
In the process of moral development, there is a circular relation between

‘acts that build character’ and ‘moral character’ itself. Not all acts help build
moral character, but those acts which emanate from moral characters certainly
matter in moral development. Hence, a person’s actions determine his/her moral
character, but the moral character itself generates that help in developing either
virtue or vice.
FEELINGS CAN HELP IN MAKING THE RIGHT DECISIONS
Moreover, ethics-without-feeling also appears to go against Christian

philosophy’s emphasis on love, for love is a strong liking, desire, or emotion.
Applied religiously, exclusive feelings in moral living seem to go against the biblical
decree to worship and serve God with 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
right or 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. Our discussions on Ethical Subjectivism and Emotivism should
not be construed, however, as completely removing people’s feelings, taste,
emotion, liking, and the like in the sphere of morality. Admittedly, there are
situations in which our feelings and likings are relevant to the rightness of our
decisions and actions. In selecting a course to take, a job to assume, and
especially a person to marry, we wonder how one’s decision can be right without
at least considering our feeling, taste, and preference.
REASON AND IMPARTIALITY AS MINIMUM REQUIREMENT FOR MORALITY
One of the reasons Ethical Subjectivism and emotivism are not viable
theories in ethics is that they miss making a distinction between moral judgments
and mere expressions of personal preference. Genuine moral or value judgments
ought to be backed up by pertinent reasons. Moreover, they must possess the
quality of impartiality, which means, among other things those personal feelings
or inclinations should be necessary if necessary.

AGAS
REASON AND IMPARTIALITY DEFINED
Humans have not only feelings but also the 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, the reason is a requirement for morality.
At least in Philosophy, the 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.
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 that are a statement about his/her
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 that the
weight of 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

AGAS
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 based on 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, generally speaking, 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
than 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, property 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.
THE 7-STEP MORAL REASONING MODEL
Contemporary author Scott B. Rae., Ph.D. proposes a model for making

ethical decisions. To say the least, his suggested 7-step model introduces the use
of reason and impartiality? n deciding on moral matters.
Rae starts presenting his model by telling the case of a 20 years old Hispanic
male who was brought to a hospital emergency room, having suffered
abdominal injuries due to a gunshot wound obtained in gang violence:
"He had no medical insurance, and his stay in the hospital was somewhat
shorter than expected due to his good recovery. Physicians attending to him felt
that he could complete his recovery at home just as easily as in the hospital and
he was released after only a few days in the hospital.

AGAS
During his stay in the hospital, the patient admitted to his primary" physician
that he was HIV positive, having contracted the virus that causes AIDS. This was
confirmed by a blood test administered while he was hospitalized.”
"When he was discharged from the hospital, the physician recommended

that a professional nurse visit him regularly at home to change the bandages on
his still substantial wounds and to ensure that an infection did not develop.”
"Since he had no health insurance, he was dependent on Medicaid, a

government program that pays for necessary medical care for those who cannot
afford it However, Medicaid refused to pay for home nursing care since there was
someone already in the home who was capable of providing the necessary
care.”
"That person was the patient’s 22 yr. old sister, who was willing to take care
of her brother until he was fully recovered. Their mother had died years ago and
the sister was accustomed to providing care for her younger siblings. The patient
had no objection to his sister providing this care, but he insisted that she not be
told that he has tested HIV positive. Though he had always had a good
relationship with his sister, she did not know that he was an active homosexual. His
even greater fear was that his father would hear of his homosexual orientation
and lifestyle homosexuality is generally looked upon with extreme disfavor among
Hispanics.”
Now here lies the moral dilemma. The patient's doctor is bound by his code
of ethics that puts a very high priority on keeping confidentiality. This code
mandates that information about one’s medical condition that he or she does
not want to be known cannot be revealed by the physician. Some would even
argue that the obligation of confidentiality is even greater with HIV/AIDS since the
revelation of somebody’s homosexual orientation usually carries devastating
personal costs for the person who is forced "out of the closet.”
On the other hand, the patient’s sister, without knowing the truth, is putting
herself at risk by providing nursing care for him. Some would categorically" argue
that she has a right to know the risks to which she is subjecting herself, especially
since she willingly volunteered to take care of her brother.
So, if you were the physician, what would you do in this case? Would you
breach the rule of confidentiality to safeguard the patient’s sister, or would you
keep confidentiality to protect the patient from harm that would come to him
from his other family members, especially his father?

AGAS
For Rae, as good a question as "what would you do" in this situation is
probably the question, 'how would you decide what to do” in this situation? He
believes that the process of making a moral decision can be as significant as the
decision itself, and many ethical decisions that people encounter “are so
complex that it is easy to exhaust oneself’ talking around the problem without
actually making any progress toward resolving it. The response to many moral
dilemmas is 'where do I start?” and the person who is faced with these decisions
often needs direction that will enable him or her to move constructively toward
resolution and 'see the forest for the trees”.
To sufficiently address the ethical dilemmas that people encounter

regularly; Rae offers a model which can be used to ensure that all the needed
bases are covered. He admits that the model is not a formula that will
automatically generate the 'right’ answer to an ethical problem but a guideline
in ascertaining that all right questions are being asked in the process of ethical
deliberation.
The following are the steps or elements of a model for making moral decisions:
a. Gather the facts. Some moral dilemmas can be resolved just by clarifying
the 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 thus have to ask not only "what we know?” to generate
an intelligent ethical decision.
b. 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 or her own decisions about medical care) vs. the sanctity of life
(or the duty to preserve life). In the above-mentioned case, the interests of
the patient are having the physician keep confidentiality conflict with the
interests of his sister in being protected from the risk of contracting HIV.
c. Identify the Principles that Have a Bearing on the Case. What principles
have a bearing on the case? In any moral dilemma, some sure moral values
or principles 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 than heavily than others. For Rae,

AGAS
biblical principles will be weighted the most heavily. But there may be other
principles essentially relevant to the case that may come from other
sources. There may be constitutional principles or principles drawn from the
natural law that supplement the biblical principles that come into play
here.
d. 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. In
addition, you may come up with some very creative alternatives that you
had not considered before.”
e. 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, maybe rejected by this step of comparison.
f. 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."
g. 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 possesses the least number of
problems or negative consequences, not one that is devoid of them.
Employing this Rae's model, let us return to the aforementioned

specific case to illustrate how the model is used and clarify exactly what is
meant by each of the elements in the model:
a. Gather the Facts. For Rae, the relevant facts in the case are:
- The patient is a young man, infected with HIV and active
homosexual

AGAS
- He suffered fairly severe abdominal wounds but is recovering
well
- Homosexuality is looked down upon in Hispanic communities
- The patient has insisted that his physician maintain
confidentiality about his HIV status
- The patient is afraid of rejection by his father if his
homosexuality is discovered, an understandable fear given the
way homosexuality is viewed in the Hispanic community
- He was wounded by gunfire in gang violence. It is not clear but
is a reasonable assumption that he is a gang member. As a
result, he likely fears rejection and perhaps retribution from his
fellow gang members, especially if they discover that he is HIV
positive
- He is uninsured and cannot afford home nursing care by a
professional
- Medicaid refuses to pay professional home nursing care
- The patient’s sister is willing and able to provide the necessary
nursing care for her brother.
- She is accustomed to providing maternal-like care for her
brothers and sisters
- The patient has specifically requested that his sister not be told
of his HIV status. She does not know that he is an active
homosexual
- The patient’s sister would be changing fairly sizeable wound
dressings for her brother and the chances are high that she
would come into contact with his HIV-infected blood. The
probability of her becoming infected with the vims from this
contact is difficult to predict.
b. Determine the Ethical Issue(s). In this case, the competing interests

are those of the sister who will provide the care and the patient
who will receive it. Both of them have interests in being protected
from harm. The patient fears being harmed in a psycho-social way
if his homosexuality and the HTV status were discovered. In effect,
he has put the physician in a difficult situation by demanding that
his right to confidentiality be kept. Though she does not know it,
his sister fears medical harm due to the risk of contracting the HIV
vims from contact with her brother's blood.
The case is stated as a conflict between confidentiality for the

patient vs. the right to know the patient’s condition for his sister
due to the risk she would be taking in giving him nursing care. By

AGAS
way of summary, the conflict is the need for patient confidentiality
vs. the duty to warn the sister of the risk of harm.
c. Identify the Principles that have a Bearing on the case. So, what
principles have a bearing on the case? Two ethical principles that
speak to the case come out of how the moral issue is stated. The
case is about a conflict of rights, a conflict of duties that the
physician has toward his patient and the sister. He is morally
obligated to exercise compassion toward both, but compassion
(or the duty to “no harm") requires depends on which individual in
the case is in view.
Two principles are thus dominant. First, is the widely

acknowledged principle that patients have a right to have their
medical information kept confidential, especially the information
that could be used to harm if it were revealed. But a second
principle relevant to the case is the duty of the physician to warn
interested patients other than the patient if they are at risk of
looming and considerable harm.
A difficult aspect of any ethical decision is deciding what

weight to give the principles relevant to the case. No doubt, the
principle of confidentiality is deemed virtually sacred in the
medical profession and most physicians will argue that it is
necessary to keep confidentiality if patients are to trust their
physicians and continue coming for treatment. However,
confidentiality is often measured as subordinate to the duty to
warn someone who will likely be harmed if that information is not
revealed. “For example, if a psychologist believes that his patient
will kill his wife, or beat her severely, he has a moral obligation to
inform the wife that she is in danger from her husband. The duty
to warn someone from imminent and severe harm is usually
considered a more heavily weighted principle than
confidentiality in cases like these.” In this case, the crucial question
is weighing two conflicting principles is the degree of risk that the
patient’s sister is taking by providing nursing care for her brother. If
the risk is not considerable, then that weighs confidentiality a bit
more heavily- But if the risk is substantial, then the duty to warn is
the more heavily weighted principle.
Considering that the sister has volunteered to perform a very

self-sacrificing service for her brother, it can be argued that her
self-sacrifice is an additional factor that weighs the duty to warn

AGAS
principle more heavily. Some would even claim that the patient's
HIV is an example of “reaping what one sows," and that all the
more minimizes consideration of the patient’s desire for
confidentiality.
Another element that should be considered in the deliberation is

that the risk to the patient, though it may have a higher probability
of happening, is not as severe as the risk to the sister. “After all, if
the worst-case scenario happened to the patient, his father
would disown him, and the gang would throw him out. He would
recover from all of that. But if his sister contracted HIV, she would
not recover from that. Though the probability of the worst-case
scenario is higher for the patient, the results of the worst-case are
higher for the sister."
d. List the alternatives. One option is to tell the sister that her brother
is HIV positive. This alternative comes out of considering the duty
to warn principle as the higher priority. A second option is to refuse
to tell her that information, considering the confidentiality
principle as carrying the most weight, thereby upholding the
patient's request for confidentiality.
However, other alternatives do not involve compromise and

they each reflect a weighing of the two principles. One
alternative is for the physician to warn the patient’s sister in
general terms about taking suitable precautions for caring for
these types of wounds. At all times, she is to wear gloves and a
mask when handling the bandages. If she gets any blood on her
clothes or body, she is to wash instantly with a disinfectant soap.
Meaning, she is to take universal precautions that any medical
professional normally takes in caring for patients.
Another alternative is to request that the patient inform his sister

of his condition. The patient could then request that she not tell
any other family member or any of his friends. If the patient
declined, then the next step might be to say to him in effect, “If
you don't tell her, I will.”
e. Compare Alternatives with Principles. Rae suggests that it may be

that the alternative of 'encouraging universal precautions for the
sister but not telling her why’ comes very close to satisfying all the
pertinent principles. Surely though, there are questions about the
adequacy. Will she follow them, or treat them casually? Assume

AGAS
for the moment, however, that appeal to principles does not
resolve the dilemma.
f. Assess the Consequences. The undertaking here is to take the

viable alternatives that attempt to predict what the likely
consequences (both positive and negative) of each would be.
Furthermore, it should be tried to estimate approximately how
beneficial are the positive consequences and how severe the
negative ones are since some consequences are more
substantial than others.
Usually, when two opposing alternatives are offered, the

consequences of one are the mirror image of the other. This is
exemplified by our case’s alternatives of telling the sister or
refusing to tell her of her brother’s HIV status.
The option of telling the sister (or insisting that the patient tells his
sister has the following likely consequences):
- The sister would be properly warned about the risks of taking

care of her brother, minimizing the risk of her contracting HIV,
and saving her from the risk of developing a fatal illness.
- The brother’s HIV status would be out in the open, leaving

family and gang friends to draw their conclusions about his
homosexuality. Should they draw the right conclusion, which is
likely, he suffers significant psychosocial harm from his gang
members, and possibly (though not certainly) from his family.
- Trust with the physician and the patient suffers and he may
refuse to see that physician, or any other one again until a dire
medical emergency. This would be unfortunate since due to
his HIV status, he will need ongoing medical care.
In the alternative of the physician refusing to disclose the

information, the following may be estimated as the likely
consequences:
- The sister would not know about the risks she is taking, making
her vulnerable to contracting an infection for which there is no
cure. The degree of risk that she is taking is open to debate,
but some would argue that if the degree of risk is any more

AGAS
than minimal, that justifies warning her since the virus produces
a fatal disease.
- The patient’s HIV status is a well-kept secret, as his

homosexuality. But it is not likely that either his HIV status or his
homosexuality can be kept a secret forever since as HIV
develops into full-blown AIDS, both are likely to come out in the
future.
- Trust between the physician and patient is maintained.
Now, if the alternative of telling the sister to take general

precautions is adopted, the following are the likely consequences:
- She may exercise appropriate caution in taking care of her

brother, but she may not. She may treat the precautions
casually and knowingly put herself at risk. If the physician tells
her about the precautions in very strong terms to ensure her
compliance with them, that may start her asking questions
about why the doctor was so insistent on her following his
precautions. One of the motives of the physician might be to
nudge her toward asking some of those questions, of her
brother, to further minimize the risk of contracting HIV.
- In general, the patient’s HIV status and homosexual orientation

are kept secret, and confidentiality is honored, but the
question of how long it will remain a secret is unknown and it
will likely become known eventually.
- Trust with the physician and patient is maintained. However, if

the sister is nudged to ask her brother some pressing questions
about why these precautions are so important, he may
conclude that the physician has prompted his sister to ask
questions, leaving him betrayed.
g. Make a Decision. Rae offers no decision under this final step but
instead leaves us the following further guiding questions: "What
would you decide in this case? Which principles are the
weightiest? Are there others that you would include? Which
alternatives are the most viable? Are there others that you would
suggest? Which consequences seem to you the most severe? Are
there others that you think will occur? Indeed, it is significant to

AGAS
understand that at some point, we must stop deliberating and
make a decision, as uncomfortable as that may be.
For one thing, Rae’s model is good in the sense that it has room
in it to accommodate a whole host of different moral and ethical
perspectives, considering the ethnic and religious diversity of our
society. The model is not necessarily tied to any one specific
perspective but can be employed comfortably with a variety of
ethnic, cultural, and religious backgrounds. Finally, it promotes the
primal consideration of reason and impartiality in ethics without
necessarily eradicating the role of feelings in ethical deliberation.

AGAS
Learning Activity
DIRECTION: In a letter-size bond paper, do the following activities and submit it
online on our Google Classroom on the prescribed submission date.
ACTIVITY 1: ESSAY
Direction: In a letter size paper, write your answer to the following questions
1. Check and discuss your personal growth against the stages of moral
development.
2. By way of summary, compare and contrast simple subjectivism and
emotivism.
3. Recall immediate responses to moral dilemmas. Differentiate
responses based on reason and those based on feelings.
4. Look for stories from news clips (or the news online) that highlight
emotional and rational responses. Discuss your emotional and
rational responses to the news.
5. You may choose either one:
a. check real-life cases against the 7-step model, a model that
uses reason and impartiality.
b. use the 7-step moral reasoning model to solve a case (moral
dilemma).
EXERCISE 1:
Direction: In a letter size paper, write your answer to the following questions
A. List the principles you feel you received from your parents, teachers, and
friends that reflect your cultural values.
B. The list below describes a wide variety of satisfactions that people obtain
from their jobs. Look at the definitions of these various satisfactions and
rate the degree of importance that you would assign to each, using the
scale below:
1 – Not important at all

2 – moderately important
3 – important
4 – very important

AGAS
 Help Society: Do something to contribute to making the world a better
place in which to live.
 Help Others: Be involved indirectly helping other people, with individuals
or small groups.
 Public Contact: Have a lot of day-to-day contact with people.
 Work with Others: Have close working relationships with a group; work as
a team toward common goals.
 Competition: Engage in activities that put my abilities against others in a
situation where there is clear win-lose
outcomes.
 Make Decisions: Have the power to decide courses of action, policies,
etc.
 Work Under Pressure: Work in situations where time pressure is prevalent
and/or the quality of my work is judged
critically by supervisors.
 Power and Authority: Control the work activities or (partially) the destinies
of other people.
 Work Alone: Do projects by myself, without any significant amount of
contact with others.
 Intellectual Status: Be regarded as a person of high intellectual prowess
or as one who is an acknowledged "Expert"
in a given field.
 Creativity (general): Create new ideas, programs, or systems not
following a format previously developed by others.
 Supervision: Have a job in which I am directly responsible for the work
done by others.
 Change and Variety: Have work responsibilities that frequently change
in their content and setting.
 Precision Work: Work in situations where there is very little tolerance for
error.
 Security: Be assured of keeping my job and a reasonable financial
reward.
 Recognition: Be recognized for the quality of my work in some visible or
public way.
 Excitement: Experience a high degree of (or frequent) excitement in the
course of my work.
 Profit, Gain: Have a strong likelihood of accumulating large amounts of
money or other material gains.
 Independence: Be able to determine the nature of my work without
significant direction from others; be my boss.
 Moral Fulfillment: Feel that my work is contributing significantly to a set of
moral standards that I feel are very

AGAS
important.
 Location: Find a place to live (town, geographical area) that is
conducive to my lifestyle and allows me the
opportunity to do the things I enjoy most.
 Community: Live in a town or city where I can get involved in community
affairs.
 Time/Freedom: Have work responsibilities that I can work at according
to my schedule.
Rubrics of Essay / Reflection / Reaction
Excellent Good Fair Poor

Criteria Score
4 3 2 1
Focus and There is one specific, There is one clear, well- There is one topic, but The topic and main
Details well-focused topic. The focused topic. The the main ideas are not ideas are not clear.
main ideas are clear main ideas are clear especially clear
and are well supported but are not supported
by detailed and by detailed information
accurate information or facts
Organization The introduction is The introduction states The introduction states There is no clear
inviting, states the main the main topic and the main topic. A introduction, structure,
topic, and provides an provides an overview conclusion is included or conclusion.
overview of the of the paper. A but is not especially
argument. Information conclusion is included relevant/supportive
is relevant and but does not
presented in logical strengthen the
order. The conclusion is argument/position
strong.
Voice The author’s purpose of The author’s purpose of The author’s purpose of The author’s purpose of
writing is very clear, writing is somewhat writing is somewhat writing is unclear.
and there is strong clear, and there is clear, and there is
evidence of attention some evidence of evidence of attention
to the audience. The attention to the to the audience. The
author’s knowledge of audience. The author’s author’s knowledge of
and/or experience knowledge of and/or the topic seems
with the topic is experience with the limited.
evident. topic is evident.
Word The author uses vivid The author uses vivid The author uses words The writer uses a limited
Choice words and phrases. The words and phrases. The that communicate vocabulary. Jargon or
choice and placement choice and placement clearly, but the writing cliches are not used
of words seem of words are lacks variety and properly and detract
accurate, natural, and inaccurate at times seems inappropriate to from the meaning.
appropriate. and/or seem overdone the subject matter.
or inappropriate for the
subject matter.
Sentence All sentences are well Most sentences are Most sentences are Sentences sound
Structure, constructed and have well constructed and well constructed, but awkward, are
Grammar, varied structure and have varied structure they have a similar distractingly repetitive,
Mechanics, length. The author and length. The author structure and/or or are difficult to
and Spelling makes very few errors makes a few errors in length. The author understand. The author
in grammar, grammar, mechanics, makes several errors in makes numerous errors
mechanics, and/or and /or spelling, but grammar, mechanics, in grammar,
spelling. these mistakes do not and /or spelling that mechanics, and/or
interfere with interfere with spelling that interfere
understanding understanding. with understanding.

AGAS
REFERENCES
Curry, O.S., Morality as Cooperation: A Problem-Centered Approach, in The

Evolution of Morality, T.K. Shackelford and R.D. Hansen, Editors. 2016, Springer
International Publishing. p. 27-51.
Curry, O. S., Mullins, D. A., & Whitehouse, H. (forthcoming). Is it good to

cooperate? Testing the theory of morality-as-cooperation in 60 societies. Current
Anthropology. (https://osf.io/9546r/)
Christakis, Nicholas & Panner, Morris J. (1991). Existing international ethical

guidelines for human subject research: some open questions. Law of Medical
Healthcare, 19, 214-221.
Crigger, Nancy J.; Holcomb, Lydia & Weiss, Joanne (2001).

Fundamentalism, multiculturalism, and problems conducting research with
populations in developing nations. Nursing Ethics, 8(5), 459-469.
Darou, Wes; Kurtness, Jacques & Hum, Andrew (1993). An investigation of

the impact of psychological research on a Native population. Professional
Psychology: Research and Practice, 24, 325-329.
Hoare, Tony; Levy, Chris & Robinson, Michael P. (1993). Participatory action
research in Native communities: Cultural opportunities and legal implications. The
Canadian Journal of Native Studies, 13(1), 43-68.
Ferrell, O. C. (2015). Business Ethics: Ethical Decision Making and Cases. ISBN
978-1-305-50084-6.
Oliveira, Nuno; Lumineau, Fabrice (2019). "The Dark Side of
Interorganizational Relationships: An Integrative Review and Research Agenda".
Journal of Management. 45 (1): 231–261. doi:10.1177/0149206318804027. ISSN
0149-2063.

AGAS

Module 2 & Module 3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Module 2 & Module 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GE 8 - ETHICS

COMPILED BY CELENIA M. AGAS 17 | P a g e

LESSON 2A: Culture and Moral

COMPILED BY CELENIA M. AGAS 18 | P a g e

THE MORAL AGENT

DEVELOPING VIRTUE AS A HABIT

Moral character refers to the existence or lack of virtues such as integrity,

MORAL CHARACTER AND VIRTUES

So, when we speak of a ‘virtue’ or excellence of moral character, the

THE CIRCULAR RELATIONS OF ACTS AND CHARACTER

In the process of moral development, there is a circular relation between

COMPILED BY CELENIA M. AGAS 19 | P a g e

SIX STAGES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT

The American psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg (1927-1987) is best known

LEVEL 1 – Pre-conventional Morality

GETTING TO THE HIGHEST LEVEL, CONSCIENCE-BASED MORAL

Stage 1 – Respect for Power and Punishment

A young child (age 1-5) chooses what to do – what is right –

COMPILED BY CELENIA M. AGAS 20 | P a g e

Children (age 5-10) are disposed to be egoistic or self-serving. They

Stage 3 – Being a “Good Boy or Nice Girl”

In this stage, people (age 8-16) have shifted from pleasing

Stage 4 – Law and order thinking

Stage 5 – Justice through democracy

In this stage, people understand the underlying moral purposes that

COMPILED BY CELENIA M. AGAS 21 | P a g e

Summary of Kohlberg’s Theory

Level Age Range Stage Nature of Moral Reasoning

COMPILED BY CELENIA M. AGAS 22 | P a g e

COMPILED BY CELENIA M. AGAS 23 | P a g e

1. Name some skills required to be a moral agent.

EXERCISE 1: The Runaway Train: A "thought experiment"

You have two options:

COMPILED BY CELENIA M. AGAS 24 | P a g e

1. Which option do you choose? option a | option b

COMPILED BY CELENIA M. AGAS 25 | P a g e

3. Explain your reasoning

COMPILED BY CELENIA M. AGAS 26 | P a g e

Christen M, Van Schalk C, Fischer J, Huppenbauet M, Tanner C. Empirically informed

Haghighat S, Borhani F, Ranjbar H. Is there a relationship between moral competencies

Kohlberg, L. The Development of Modes of Thinking and Choices in Years 10 to 16.

Mathes, Eugene. An evolutionary perspective on Kohlberg’s theory of moral

Mc Combs School of Business. Texas: Ethics unwrapped.

Morley G, Ives J, Bradbury-Jones C, Irvine F. What is 'moral distress'? A narrative synthesis

Oxford Dictionaries, Oxford University Press,

COMPILED BY CELENIA M. AGAS 27 | P a g e

THE ACT: FEELINGS

COMPILED BY CELENIA M. AGAS 28 | P a g e

FEELINGS AS INSTINCTIVE RESPONSE TO MORAL DILEMMAS

COMPILED BY CELENIA M. AGAS 29 | P a g e

Many times, ethical judgments are highly emotional as people emotionally

FEELINGS AS OBSTACLES TO MAKING THE RIGHT DECISIONS

Feelings and emotions, however, can become obstacles or impediments

Although it admits that moral judgments are ‘truth bears,’ Ethical

For every controversial topic, say homosexuality or abortion, we usually

COMPILED BY CELENIA M. AGAS 30 | P a g e

In Ethical Subjectivism, it is a fact that some people are homosexual and

The theory, therefore, proposes that when we say something is morally

EMOTIVISM. One way to look at Emotivism is to view it as an improved

Emotivism is the most popular form of non-cognitivism, the meta-ethical

COMPILED BY CELENIA M. AGAS 31 | P a g e

Now, we also need the difference between reporting an attitude and

First, they are used as a means of influencing other’s behavior. If someone