WORKSHEET FOR MORAL DELIBERATION

Minimum Requirement of Morality

Step 1: Identifying and setting up the Ethical Problem

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

Step 2: What are the relevant facts?

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

Step 3: Who are the Stakeholders?

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

Step 4: What are the available options?

It is important to list down at least three. As Aristotle remarks, there are at least
two, and these two often represent the extremes. No-thing is ever either black or white;
sometimes one is forced to think in terms of a compro-mise, even if that compromise
doesn’t exactly conform to your personal notion of what is the right thing to do. It is at
this stage that reason struggles to transcend what we feel.
Guide Questions for Evaluating the Options:
1. What benefits and what harms will each option produce, and which alternative
will lead to the best overall consequence? (Utilitarianism)
2. What moral rights do the affected parties have, and which option best respects
those rights? (Kant)
3. Which course of action advances the common good?
 4. Which decision enables me to be and act in ways that develop my highest
potential as a person? (Virtue)
5. Which option treats everyone the same, except where there is a morally
justifiable reason not to, and does not show favoritism or discrimination?
(Justice and Fairness)

Step 5: Determine the most appropriate action

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

A 7-Step Model for Ethical Decision-Making

1. Gather the facts
2. Identify the stakeholders
3. Articulate the dilemma
4. List the alternatives
5. Compare the alternatives with the principle
6. Weight the consequences
7. Make the decision
The Matrix of Alternatives: Use this to gather together the data generated by steps 1-6
in order to perform step #7
ALTERNATIVES VALUES/PRINCIPLES CONSEQUENCES

Remember:
• Note: Deliberation cannot go on forever
• Avoid “paralysis by analysis”
• There are no easy and painless solutions to ethical dilemma
• The decision must reflect one’s values
Why do the right Thing?
 Because knowing the right thing to do and actually being able to do it is essential
for me to achieve my highest goal (happiness: eudaimonia)
- Virtue Ethics: Aristotle
 Because in means I am following the human nature that God gave me, which is
essential for me to achieve my highest goal (happiness: beautitudo)
- Virtue Ethics II: Thomas Aquinas (Nature Law Ethics)
 Because it is my duty
- Deontological Ethics: Immanuel Kant
 Because it produces the greatest good for the greatest number
- Consequentialist Ethics: Utilitarianism: Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart
Mill
 Because it is what is fair and equitable
- “Justice as Fairness”: John Rawls

Step 6: Double-checking the Decision

Requirement of Impartiality. (Requirement of justice?) Each individual's interests are
equally important, i.e., there are no "privileged" people.
First, Moral judgments must be backed by good reasons: We must avoid
making judgments on the basis of feelings alone. "Morality is, first and foremost, a
matter of consulting reason: the morally right thing to do is determined by what there are
the best reasons for doing." How do we evaluate arguments then? First, we should get
our facts straight. Second, moral theories/principles should be brought into play. In
other words, these function to justify (not rationalize) our actions and decisions.

Second, we must also ask if our arguments are both valid and sound. A valid
argument is one whose premises logically entail its conclusion. An invalid argument on
the other hand is one whose premises do not entail its conclusion. In an invalid
argument, one can accept the premises as true and reject the conclusion without any
contradiction. A sound argument, on the other hand, has true premises and valid
reasoning. An unsound argument employs invalid reasoning or has at least one false
premise.

Finally, our decision must be “enabling” rather than “disabling.” There are
decisions that prevent us from acting any more fruitfully or effectively. These decisions
cannot be moral! After all, a moral decision or action is one that liberates us – develops
our potentialities as a person. A decision that “dis-ables” us prevents our growth as
persons.

NOTE
 “Ought” expresses the objective pole of morality. This imperative is what ethical
reflection tries to uncover. Such reflections yield statements of right and wrong,
such as “euthanasia is wrong” and “keeping promises is right.”
 “Can” expresses the subjective pole of a person’s capacity to choose right or
wrong. . . . There is a limit to what can be done by each person at each time in
order to live truthfully, compassionately, and respectfully of self and others. To
refuse to accept this is to demand perfect love from imperfect creatures.
 We are still on the way to the full flowering of love. (Richard M. Gula, SS, Moral
Discernment (New York: Paulist Press, 1997)