FEELINGS, MORAL

DECISION-MAKING,
REASON AND
IMPARTIALITY
Module 5
AAH12 | Ethics - Preliminaries
DALUBHASAANG Institute of Arts and Sciences
POLITEKNIKO NG
LUNGSOD NG BALIWAG Instructor: Mark Henri Ramos

1
2

Module Overview
Explore the roles of reason and emotions in ethical choices, from philosophers advocating
for their integration to critics emphasizing reason’s supremacy. Learn about the nature of feelings—
non-deliberate, partial, and capricious—and discover their impact on decision-making. Engage with
a practical 7-step model to navigate ethical dilemmas, honing skills to gather facts, list alternatives,
and weigh consequences. By the end, you'll develop the knowledge and skills to balance reason
and emotions, making mindful ethical decisions.

Intended Learning Outcomes:

At the end of this module, students will be able to:

Knowledge:
• Define and articulate the philosophical perspectives surrounding the role of emotions in
ethical decision-making, including arguments for and against their incorporation.
• Identify key concepts such as the non-deliberate, partial, and capricious nature of feelings
and their implications in the context of moral reasoning.
• Explain the distinctions between the emotive and prescriptive elements within moral
judgment, as delineated by philosophers like Alfred Jules Ayer.

Skills:
• Apply the 7-step moral reasoning model to analyze and navigate ethical dilemmas,
demonstrating the ability to gather relevant facts, identify stakeholders, articulate dilemmas,
list alternatives, compare alternatives with principles, weigh consequences, and make
informed decisions.
• Critically evaluate the interplay between reason and emotions in personal decision-making
through reflection on real-life moral dilemmas, assessing the impact of each factor on the
decision outcomes.
• Demonstrate the skill to engage in creative thinking to generate a diverse set of alternatives
when faced with ethical decisions, avoiding reliance on limited choices.

Behavior:
• Exhibit a balanced approach to moral decision-making by consciously integrating reason and
emotions, considering their complementary roles, and avoiding the pitfalls associated with
relying solely on one aspect.
• Apply the knowledge of emotions as red flags and indicators for potential incorrect
judgments, actively engaging in reflection and correction to enhance ethical decision-making
over time.
• Cultivate mindfulness in emotional responses, demonstrating the ability to deliberately alter
emotional reactions in alignment with personal beliefs and goals, rather than being
dominated or hindered by emotions in ethical considerations.

Module 5 | Feelings, Moral Decision-Making, Reason and Impartiality

3

Introduction
The exploration of feelings in the context of moral decision-making is a nuanced and intricate
domain, with divergent philosophical perspectives shaping the discourse. Some philosophers argue
for the incorporation of emotions in ethical judgments, considering them as both instinctive and
trained responses to moral dilemmas. These proponents posit that emotions, far from being
opposed to reason, play complementary roles in ethical thinking, functioning as judgments about
the attainment of personal goals and motivations for moral actions. On the contrary, critics, such
as philosopher James Rachels, emphasize the supremacy of reason over emotions in moral
reasoning, contending that relying on feelings can lead to irrational decisions influenced by personal
biases or cultural conditioning. This discussion delves into the role of feelings in decision-making,
the differences between responses based on reason and feelings, the potential obstacles posed by
feelings, and how emotions can contribute positively to making sound decisions. Additionally, it
explores the requirements of reason and impartiality in ethical considerations and presents a 7-
step moral reasoning model to guide individuals in navigating the complexities of ethical decision-
making.

Feelings as Instinctive Response to Moral

Dilemmas
Certain philosophers argue that ethics encompasses emotions, contending that optimal
moral judgments should incorporate emotional elements. They assert that feelings play a vital role
in ethical decision-making, being considered by some as both instinctive and trained responses to
moral dilemmas. Some proponents of this viewpoint reject the notion that reason, and emotion are
fundamentally opposed. Instead, they posit that abstract inference and emotional intuitions have
complementary roles in ethical thinking. According to this perspective, emotions function as
judgments regarding the attainment of personal goals, suggesting that emotions can be rational
when grounded in sound assessments of how well a circumstance or agent achieves appropriate
objectives. Furthermore, emotions are viewed as visceral or instinctual, serving as motivations for
moral actions.

What is the Role of Feelings in Decision-

Making?
Engaging reason is a crucial aspect of moral decision-making, as emphasized by
philosophers who advocate for its use in ethical considerations. Nonetheless, it is essential to
acknowledge that feelings exert a significant influence on our moral compass. David Hume posited
that, in various situations, individuals are more likely to act based on emotions rather than reason
(Bucciarelli, et. al., 2008).

In the realm of moral decision-making, instances exist where reasoning follows an initial
intuition or gut feeling, as highlighted by Haidt (2012). For example, when faced with the choice

Module 5 | Feelings, Moral Decision-Making, Reason and Impartiality

4

between studying and partying before an exam, negative emotions like guilt and worry may arise
merely by contemplating going out instead of focusing on studying. Alfred Jules Ayer, a 20th-century
philosopher, delineated two elements within moral judgment, known as the Emotive and
Prescriptive elements (2012).

• Emotive Element: This facet of moral decision-making involves expressing positive feelings
towards a particular act. For instance, one might assert, “Kindness is good,” reflecting a
favorable emotional response.
• Prescriptive Element: On the other hand, the prescriptive element issues instructions or
prescriptions for specific behavior, such as stating, “Be kind to others,” outlining a
recommended course of action.

Difference between Responses Based on

Reason and on Feelings
Taking an opposing stance in the discourse on the role of feelings in moral decision-making
are those who advocate for the supremacy of reason over emotions. Renowned philosopher and
Professor Dr. James Rachels concurred that, in the realm of moral reasoning, relying on one’s
feelings, no matter their intensity, is not advisable. He argued that feelings can be irrational, serving
as a product of personal biases, selfish inclinations, or cultural conditioning. According to Rachels,
the morally right course of action aligns with rational arguments.

A reasoned argument, as outlined by Rachels, is deemed reasonable when:

(a) The facts are accurate,

(b) Moral principles are correctly applied, and
(c) Each individual’s well-being is given equal importance.

Why Feelings can be Obstacle to Making the

Right Decision
Three key characteristics explain why emotions may impede the process of making correct
decisions:

1. Non-deliberate Nature:
Emotions hinder decision-making due to their spontaneous and non-
deliberate nature. Actions driven by emotions often occur without thoughtful
consideration.

Module 5 | Feelings, Moral Decision-Making, Reason and Impartiality

5

2. Partial Nature (Be'en Zeev, 1997):

The partial nature of emotions, as elucidated by Be'en Zeev (1997), implies
that emotions tend to focus on specific concerns or interests, potentially
leading to biased decision-making.

3. Capricious (Pizarro, 2000):

Emotions are capricious, according to Pizarro (2000), meaning they can be
unpredictable or whimsical. This capricious nature introduces a level of
unpredictability that may interfere with making rational and well-informed
decisions.

The Non-Deliberate Nature of Feelings

Deliberate actions involve intention and conscious effort, while non-deliberate actions are
spontaneous and occur without thoughtful planning. To illustrate, consider the scenario where one
swiftly retreats to bed upon turning off the lights due to fear of the darkness. This immediate
response is non-deliberate, as the individual does not consciously contemplate the action.

In the context of undesirable actions, a common excuse is attributing them to being

“overcome by emotions.” This often involves expressions such as “I couldn't help myself,” “I totally
blanked out,” “I felt overwhelmed,” or “I don't know, I just felt like doing it.” In this characterization,
emotions are likened to mindless automatic reflexes.

Philosopher Aaron Be'ez Zeev encapsulates the non-deliberate nature of feelings with the following
points:

1. Responsibility necessitates free choice; if freedom to behave in a certain manner is absent,

then responsibility for that behavior is also lacking.
2. Free choice involves intellectual deliberation, wherein alternatives are considered, and the
best one is chosen. Without such consideration, understanding possible alternatives is
compromised, and responsibility for preferring one of them is diminished.
3. Intellectual deliberation being absent from emotions means that individuals cannot be held
responsible for their emotions.

The Partial Nature of Feelings

Emotions are notorious for exhibiting favoritism, adhering to a principle known as the “law
of concern” (Fridja, 1988), where they focus exclusively on matters of personal interest. This
partiality becomes apparent when emotions remain silent in situations devoid of personal concern.
For instance, the sorrow felt for earthquake victims in other countries may pale in comparison to
the sorrow experienced if one's own family were the victims.

1. Reason alone is insufficient to motivate the will; instead, it is considered the “slave of
the passions.”
2. Moral distinctions do not originate from reason.
3. Moral distinctions stem from moral sentiments – feelings of approval (esteem, praise)
and disapproval (blame) experienced by observers contemplating a character trait or
action.

Module 5 | Feelings, Moral Decision-Making, Reason and Impartiality

6

4. While some virtues and vices are natural, others, including justice, are artificial.

Hume argued that reason, while essential for discerning the facts of a concrete situation,
alone cannot render a judgment on something being virtuous or vicious. He aligned with moral
sense theorists, asserting that awareness of moral good and evil arises from the pleasure of
approval and the uneasiness of disapproval.

According to Hume’s “Theory of the Mind,” passions, his term for emotions or feelings, are
categorized as direct or indirect. Direct passions arise directly from the sensation of pain or
pleasure, while indirect passions result from pleasure or pain derived from other ideas or
impressions. For example, pride emerges from the pleasure of possessing something admirable,
such as intellect, physique, property, or family.

In exploring the partial nature of emotions, two aspects are highlighted:

1. Decisions based on feelings focus narrowly on a specific area.

2. Emotions reflect a personal and self-interest perspective.

Emotions wield influence over attention, determining what attracts and holds attention. This
preoccupation with specific matters leads to obliviousness to everything else (Harvard Business
Review, 2015). An example is the feeling of being in love, where a narrow focus intensifies during
relationship discord, making it challenging to consider aspects outside the immediate center of
attention, such as a breakup. The second partial nature of emotion involves drawing perspective
from personal interest, prioritizing subjective concerns without considering broader rational
explanations (O’Donohue & Kitchener, 1996).

The Capricious Nature of Feelings

The third challenge associated with emotions is their tendency to surface for arbitrary
reasons. A case in point is when you refrain from giving money to an elderly beggar seeking alms
simply because she tugged at your shirt and startled you. Emotions can be triggered by aspects or
situations that are unrelated to moral considerations, and these emotions inevitably impact
subsequent moral judgments (Pizarro, 2000).

How Emotions Help in Making the Right

Decision
While numerous studies highlight the detrimental impact of emotions on decision-making,
contemporary research is increasingly focusing on how emotions can enhance reasoning. Several
studies propose that emotions form the basis of all cognitive and behavioral processes, often
guiding individuals in making advantageous choices without conscious reasoning.

In line with this perspective, researchers conducted a study involving two groups of
participants. Group 1 comprised relatively healthy individuals with no history of head injuries, while
Group 2 consisted of individuals with decision-making defects resulting from head injuries. Both
groups were assessed during gambling tasks. The observations revealed that Group 1 began

Module 5 | Feelings, Moral Decision-Making, Reason and Impartiality

7

making advantageous choices even before comprehending the most effective strategy, whereas
Group 2 continued choosing disadvantageously despite being aware of the optimal card strategy.
Furthermore, the skin properties of Group 1 changed in response to contemplating risky choices, a
reaction absent in Group 2. The study suggested that in normal individuals, non-conscious biases
influence behavior before conscious knowledge does (Bechara, et al., 1997).

There are at least three ways in which feelings, particularly negative ones, contribute to
making sound decisions:

1. Signaling the need to adjust behavior.

2. Facilitating learning from mistakes.
3. Allowing emotional responses to be reshaped over time.

Psychologists have long recognized emotions as red flags, indicating that something requires
attention (Arnold, 1960). Feelings of “something being wrong” often accompany incorrect
judgments, serving as red flags that aid in better decision-making. Moreover, heightened
physiological processes in response to incorrect judgments suggest that individuals who spend
more time reflecting on their mistakes are more likely to correct their behavior (Bonner and Newell,
2010; De Neys & Franssens, 2009).

Common emotions such as regret, shame, guilt, disappointment, and sadness resulting from
actions contrary to moral beliefs are familiar to all. Nevertheless, studies reveal that negative
feelings are essential for learning, as the surge of these emotions’ triggers “counterfactual thinking”
(Smallman and Roese, 2009).

Counterfactual thinking is a psychological concept that involves the human tendency to

create alternative scenarios beyond what occurred.

The capacity to change behavior is a fundamental concept in psychology. What matters is

the understanding that emotional responses can be deliberately altered. The psychological state of
“mindfulness,” where active attention is given to personal thoughts and feelings, illustrates that,
with effort, emotional reactions can align with one's beliefs and goals.

Emotions, being powerful and unavoidable, naturally surge. However, they should not
dominate behavior or hinder reason. Ethical or unethical conduct is determined by how individuals
navigate and respond to their emotions.

Reason and Impartiality as Requirements for

Ethics
Reason serves as the foundation or driving force behind an action, decision, or conviction.
As a quality, it denotes the ability for logical, rational, and analytical thought—consciously making
sense of things, establishing, and verifying facts, applying common sense and logic, as well as
justifying and, if necessary, altering practices, institutions, and beliefs based on existing or new
information. It also distinguishes moral judgments from mere expressions of personal preference.
In the context of moral judgments, reasons are essential, requiring substantiation. Therefore,
reason endorses what it endorses, independent of our feelings, attitudes, opinions, and desires.

Module 5 | Feelings, Moral Decision-Making, Reason and Impartiality

8

Impartiality, on the other hand, revolves around the concept that each individual’s interests and
perspectives hold equal importance. It embodies a principle of justice, asserting that decisions
should be grounded in objective criteria rather than biased by prejudice or favoring one person over
another for improper reasons. In the realm of morality, impartiality necessitates providing equal
and/or sufficient consideration to the interests of all involved parties. The principle assumes that
every person is equally important; hence, no one is deemed intrinsically more significant than
anyone else.

Is Reason a Requirement for Morality?

An applicable definition of reason in the context of our discussion is “the power of the mind
to think, understand, and form judgments through a process of logic” (Merriam-Webster, 2017).
However, Immanuel Kant, one of the most influential philosophers in the history of Western
philosophy, contended that reason alone serves as the foundation for morality. According to Kant,
understanding this fundamental requirement for morality leads individuals to realize that acting
morally is synonymous with acting rationally (Beck, 1960). Kant’s perspective asserts that the
definition of morality itself implies that individuals must make decisions. As individuals, we possess
the ability to contemplate and reflect on various actions, enabling us to choose our course of action.
Importantly, Kant emphasized that moral decisions are not driven solely by desires but are a result
of individuals exercising their willpower.

Is Impartiality a Requirement for Morality?

Before delving into the connection between impartiality and morality, it is crucial to
comprehend the essence of impartiality itself. It represents a broad concept, acknowledged as a
fundamental value in professional codes of ethics.

Impartiality is commonly defined as a principle of justice, emphasizing that decisions should

rely on objective criteria rather than being influenced by bias, prejudice, or favoring one person over
another for inappropriate reasons (Jollimore, 2011). The principle of impartiality underscores the
importance of treating everyone with equal significance and avoiding arbitrary preferences for any
group, whether it includes people, animals, or objects.

The significance of impartiality in morality becomes evident when considering how decisions
impact individuals and oneself. Philosopher and professor Dr. James Rachels assert that for a
decision to be moral, one must contemplate its effects on the people surrounding them and on
themselves. Impartiality in decision-making involves basing choices on how all individuals in each
situation will be affected, avoiding favoritism towards any specific party.

Module 5 | Feelings, Moral Decision-Making, Reason and Impartiality

9

The 7-Step Moral Reasoning Model

A distinctive characteristic of a moral dilemma is its tendency to arise when individuals or
groups face the potential for harm, disrespect, or unfair disadvantage (Beall, 2017). Ethical
decisions often navigate through a gray area, presenting situations where clear-cut or obvious
choices are elusive. The complexity of ethical decision-making transcends simple quantitative
analysis of data, demanding an interpretation of the situation, application of personal values, and
an assessment of the potential consequences.

The process of making ethical choices necessitates the ability to discern between competing
options. Here are seven steps to guide you in making more informed decisions, adapted from the
2nd Gen. CHED-GET, XU Training:

1. Gather the facts.

2. Identify the stakeholders.
3. Articulate the dilemma.
4. List the alternatives.
5. Compare the alternatives with the principles.
6. Weigh the consequences.
7. Make a decision.

Gather the Facts

Avoid making hasty conclusions; instead, inquire and seek answers to key questions such
as who, what, where, when, how, and why. In certain situations, involving ethical concerns, obtaining
facts might be challenging or unavailable due to uncertainty. However, it remains crucial to collect
as much information as possible and clarify any assumptions being made.

Identify the Stakeholders

Recognize all individuals engaged and impacted in an ethical scenario. Determine the
primary stakeholders and secondary stakeholders. Understand why they hold a stake in the matter.
Attain a comprehensive perspective by attempting to view the situation from the standpoint of those
affected.

Articulate the Dilemmas

After collecting the information and recognizing the stakeholders, it is crucial to articulate
the ethical dilemma. What conflicting values are at play? The aim of expressing the dilemma is to
ensure a thorough understanding of the situation and the moral conflict at hand. Awareness and
comprehension play a pivotal role in making the correct decision, particularly when lives are at
stake.

Module 5 | Feelings, Moral Decision-Making, Reason and Impartiality

10

List the Alternatives

Engage in creative thinking regarding possible courses of action, considering that there might be
overlooked options. This approach ensures that you are not confined to a limited set of choices.

Compare the Alternatives with the Principles

During the decision-making process, clearly outline the pertinent values you aim to uphold
in your choices. Subsequently, assess whether your potential actions align with these values. This
identification and comparison of values are crucial, as they facilitate the recognition of any illegality
or ethical concerns associated with the alternative actions, simplifying the decision-making by
eliminating inappropriate choices.

Weigh the Consequences

When evaluating the repercussions of your actions, sift through your choices to ascertain
whether any of the options would transgress ethical values. Consider all the stakeholders who will
be impacted by your decision.

Make a Decision
Keep in mind that deliberation has its limits. Steer clear of “paralysis by analysis,” which is
the state of excessively analyzing or overthinking a situation to the extent that a decision or action
is indefinitely postponed, ultimately causing a state of paralysis in the outcome.

Module 5 | Feelings, Moral Decision-Making, Reason and Impartiality

11

In Summary
• Feelings as Instinctive Response to Moral Dilemmas:
o Certain philosophers argue for emotions in ethics, stating that optimal moral judgments
should include emotional elements.
o Emotions are considered instinctive and trained responses to moral dilemmas.
o Abstract inference and emotional intuitions are seen as complementary in ethical
thinking.
o Emotions function as judgments regarding the attainment of personal goals, serving as
motivations for moral actions.

• Role of Feelings in Decision-Making:

o Engaging reason is crucial in moral decision-making, but feelings significantly influence
our moral compass.
o David Hume suggests individuals often act based on emotions rather than reason in
various situations.
o Alfred Jules Ayer distinguishes emotive and prescriptive elements in moral judgment.

• Difference between Responses Based on Reason and Feelings:

o Those advocating for reason over emotions argue that relying on feelings can be
irrational and biased.
o James Rachels emphasizes that moral decisions should align with rational arguments.
o Reasoned arguments are considered reasonable when facts are accurate, moral
principles are correctly applied, and individual well-being is given equal importance.

• Why Feelings can be Obstacle to Making the Right Decision:

o Emotions hinder decision-making due to their non-deliberate, partial, and capricious
nature.
o Non-deliberate actions driven by emotions occur without thoughtful consideration.
o Partial nature of emotions leads to biased decision-making focused on specific concerns.
o Capricious nature of emotions introduces unpredictability, interfering with rational
decision-making.

• The Non-Deliberate Nature of Feelings:

o Deliberate actions involve intention and conscious effort, while non-deliberate actions
are spontaneous.
o Aaron Be’ez Zeev argues that responsibility necessitates free choice, and emotions lack
intellectual deliberation.

• The Partial Nature of Feelings:

o Emotions exhibit favoritism, focusing on personal interests, leading to biased decisions.
o Emotions influence attention, preoccupying individuals with specific matters and
narrowing their perspective.

• The Capricious Nature of Feelings:

o Emotions can surface for arbitrary reasons, impacting subsequent moral judgments.
o Emotions triggered by unrelated situations may interfere with rational decision-making.

Module 5 | Feelings, Moral Decision-Making, Reason and Impartiality

12

• How Emotions Help in Making the Right Decision:

o Contemporary research suggests emotions can enhance reasoning and contribute to
advantageous choices.
o Negative emotions can signal the need to adjust behavior, facilitate learning from
mistakes, and reshape emotional responses over time.

• Reason and Impartiality as Requirements for Ethics:

o Reason is the foundation for ethical decision-making, involving logical, rational, and
analytical thought.
o Impartiality asserts that each individual's interests and perspectives hold equal
importance in ethical decisions.

• Is Reason a Requirement for Morality?

o Immanuel Kant contends that reason alone serves as the foundation for morality.
o Moral decisions are not solely driven by desires but result from individuals exercising
their willpower.

• Is Impartiality a Requirement for Morality?

o Impartiality in decision-making involves basing choices on how all individuals in each
situation will be affected.
o Decisions should be grounded in objective criteria, avoiding bias, prejudice, or favoritism.

• The 7-Step Moral Reasoning Model:

o Gather the facts.
o Identify the stakeholders.
o Articulate the dilemma.
o List the alternatives.
o Compare the alternatives with the principles.
o Weigh the consequences.
o Make a decision.

Module 5 | Feelings, Moral Decision-Making, Reason and Impartiality

13

Questions for Reflection

1. How do proponents of incorporating emotions into ethical decision-making argue for the
complementary roles of reason and emotions, and in what ways do critics, like James Rachels,
emphasize the potential drawbacks of relying on feelings in moral reasoning?

______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________

2. Reflect on instances in your own life where you've faced moral dilemmas. Did your decision-
making process lean more towards reason, emotions, or a combination of both? How did the
interplay between reason and emotions influence the outcome of those decisions?
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________

3. Considering the non-deliberate, partial, and capricious nature of feelings outlined in the
discussion, how can individuals cultivate a balance between reason and emotions to avoid potential
pitfalls in moral decision-making? Can you identify specific strategies or practices to enhance the
rationality of emotional responses in ethical considerations?
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________

Module 5 | Feelings, Moral Decision-Making, Reason and Impartiality