CHAPTER III

Freedom and Reason as Requirements of Morality

OBJECTIVES: At the end of the lesson, students are expected to be able to:
 Explain the importance of freedom in making moral decisions.
 Understand the concepts of reasoning and impartiality and connect it with the
idea of morality.
 Differentiate the distinctions on the Types of reasoning.

Brainstorm!
Scenario:
A landowner seeks to build a plastic recycling plant and state, that this is driven by a
desire to create local employment opportunities – whereas in fact their true motive is to make
profit.

What do you think of the motive? Is it morally acceptable or not? Why?

Freedom (Excerpt from Rohlf, 2020)

Freedom is important because, on Immanuel Kant’s view, moral appraisal presupposes
that we are free in the sense that we have the ability to do otherwise. To see why, consider Kant’s
example of a man who commits a theft. Kant holds that in order for this man’s action to be
morally wrong, it must have been within his control in the sense that it was within his power at the
time not to have committed the theft. If this was not within his control at the time, then, while it
may be useful to punish him in order to shape his behavior or to influence others, it nevertheless
would not be correct to say that his action was morally wrong.

Moral rightness and wrongness apply only to free agents who control their actions and
have it in their power, at the time of their actions, either to act rightly or not.

Rationalization (excerpt from Butts and Rich, 2008)

In moral philosophy, an argument is not simply about our beliefs or opinions; instead, it is
about the reasons underlying those beliefs and opinions (Taer, 2013). This means that the real
value of discussing and debating ethical questions is not to ‘win the argument’ or to ‘score points’
against the other person. It is more important to provide carefully considered arguments to
support our ideas, and to allow for rational – and deeper –understanding of the reasons
underlying our beliefs, ideas and attitudes. Crucially, this requires careful listening to, analysis of
and learning from the arguments that others make.

One common fault with many arguments about what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ involves rationalization
(Traer, 2013). Rationalization occurs when we use what at first glance seem to be rational and
credible motives to cover up ourtrue (and perhaps unconscious) motives.

Rationalization is a disavowal defense mechanism which permits an individual to deal with

emotional conflicts, or internal or external stressors, by devising reassuring or self-serving but
incorrect explanations for his or her own or others' thoughts, actions, or feelings, which cover up
other motives . (Perry 1990)
 The landowner is not giving their true reasons for wanting to build the plant. If, however, they
argue that they want to make a personal profit and create local jobs, then they may be
giving two true reasons for their motives.

Is rationalization good or bad?

Rationalizing an event may help individuals maintain self-respect or avoid guilt over
something they have done wrong. In many cases, rationalization is not harmful, but continuous
self-deception, when a person consistently makes excuses for destructive behavior, can become
dangerous.

Types of Reasoning (excerpt from Taer 2013 as cited in Butts and Rich, 2008)
To uncover errors in our own and others’ arguments, we have to use ‘critical reasoning’.
These are the three forms of critical reasoning that individuals can use to justify their arguments:

1. Reasoning by Analogy – explains one thing by comparing it to something else that is similar,
although also different. In a good analogy, the similarity outweighs the dissimilarity and is
clarifying. For instance, animals are like and unlike humans, as humans are also animals. Is the
similarity sufficiently strong to support the argument that we should ascribe rights to nonhuman
animals as we do to humans?

2. Deductive Reasoning – applies a principle to a situation. For instance, if every person has
human rights, and you are a person, then you have human rights like every person.

3. Inductive Reasoning – involves providing evidence to support a hypothesis. The greater the
evidence for a hypothesis, the more we can rely on it. The fact that there is mounting
evidence that the burning of fossil fuels is having a detrimental effect on global warming, for
example, is used to substantiate the argument that we have a moral duty to reduce carbon
emissions.

Reason and Impartiality

Reason
Moral judgments must be backed by good reasons.
Morality requires the impartial consideration of each individual’s interest.

 We can not rely on our feelings, no matter how powerful that might be.
 Our feelings may be irrational and may be nothing but products of selfishness, prejudices,
and cultural conditioning.
 Our decisions must be guided by reasons.
 The morally right thing to do is always the thing best supported by arguments.

Impartiality
How can we tell if an argument is really good?
Moral judgments are:
 Impartiality-fairness;
 Without being influenced by the sort of contaminating biases and prejudices;
 Not influenced by another party;
 Exclusively being influenced by the considerations and resisting solicitation of any motives
different from those which need to be considered.

The requirement of impartiality

 Each individual’s interest are equally important and no one should get special treatment.
 If there is no good for treating people indifferently, then discrimination unacceptably
arbitrary. (De Guzman et al. 2017)
CHAPTER IV
Culture and Moral Behavior
OBJECTIVES: At the end of the lesson, the students must be able to:
 Define relativism in Ethics.
 Examine the critical role as well as challenges posed by culture in ethical reasoning.
 Recognize the differences of culture of each individual.

Brainstorm!
Scenario:
Where I grew up in Australia, there was no tipping because it was believed that the
employer should pay the server a living wage. When I moved to Canada, I quickly
learned that if I didn’t tip, I was breaking a taboo!

What are your thoughts on tipping? Are customers obliged to tip?

Relativism
Relativism is the belief that there's no absolute truth, only the truths that a particular
individual or culture happen to believe. If you believe in relativism, then you think different people
can have different views about what's moral and immoral.

Cultural Relativism
This is the view that ethical and social standards reflect the
cultural context from which they are derived. Cultural relativists
uphold that cultures differ fundamentally from one another, and so do
the moral frameworks that structure relations within different
societies. The rightness or wrongness of an action is evaluated
according to the ethical standards of the society within which the
action occurs. The debate in cultural relativism is whether value judgments can be made across
cultures.

Ethical Relativism
(excerpt from Velasquez et al, 1992)

Ethical relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of one’s
culture. That is, whether an action is right or wrong depends on the moral norms of the society in
which it is practiced. The same action may be morally right in one society but be morally wrong in
another. For the ethical relativist, there are no universal moral standards – standards that can be
universally applied to all people at the same time. The only moral standards against which a
society’s practices can be judged are its own. If ethical relativism is correct, there can be no
common framework for resolving moral disputes or for reaching agreement on ethical matters
among members of different societies.

Most ethicists reject the theory of ethical relativism. Some claim that while the moral
practices of societies may differ, the fundamental moral principles underlying these
practices do not.

For example, in some societies, killing one’s parents after they reached a certain age was
common practice, stemming from the belief that people were better off in the afterlife if they
entered it while still physically active and vigorous.
 While such a practice would be condemned in our society, we would agree with these
societies on the underlying moral principle – the duty to care for parents. Societies, then, may
differ in their application of fundamental moral principles but agree on the principles.

Ethical Pluralism
(Butts and Rich, 2008)
Pluralism is an alternative to monism and relativism. Rejecting the monist view that there
is only one correct answer in ethics, pluralists also reject the relativist claim that there
can be no right answer. Instead, moral pluralists maintain that there is a plurality of
moral truths that cannot (perhaps unfortunately) be reconciled into a single principle.

CHAPTER V
The Moral Agent: Moral Development
OBJECTIVES: At the end of the lesson, the students must be able to:
 Understand the different stages of moral development.
 Explain Kohlberg’s stages of moral development.
 Explore moral dilemmas.

 Brainstorm!
The Dilemma: Heinz Steals the Drug
In Europe, a woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the
doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had
recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the
drug cost him to make. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The
sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get
together about $ 1,000 which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked
him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the
druggist said: "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it." So Heinz got desperate
and broke into the man's store to steal the drug-for his wife.

Should the husband have done that?

Moral Agency
A moral agent is a person who has the ability to discern right from wrong and to be held
accountable for his or her own actions. Moral agents have a moral responsibility not to cause
unjustified harm.

Traditionally, moral agency is assigned only to those who can be held responsible for their
actions. Children, and adults with certain mental disabilities, may have little or no capacity to be
moral agents. Adults with full mental capacity relinquish their moral agency only in extreme
situations, like being held hostage.
By expecting people to act as moral agents, we hold people accountable for the harm they
cause others.

Kohlberg's (1958a) core sample was comprised of 72 boys, from both middle- and lower-
class families in Chicago. They were ages 10, 13, and 16. He later added to his sample younger
children, delinquents, and boys and girls from other American cities and from other countries
(1963, 1970). Kohlberg made use of a dilemma and ask several questions during the interview.

Kohlberg is not really interested in whether the subject says "yes" or "no" to this dilemma but
in the reasoning behind the answer. The interviewer wants to know why the subject thinks Heinz
should or should not have stolen the drug. The interview schedule then asks new questions which
help one understand the child's reasoning. For example, children are asked if Heinz had a right to
steal the drug, if he was violating the druggist's rights, and what sentence the judge should give
him once he was caught.
Once again, the main concern is with the reasoning behind the answers. The interview then
goes on to give more dilemmas in order to get a good sampling of a subject's moral
thinking.Once Kohlberg had classified the various responses into stages, he wanted to know
whether his classification was reliable. In particular, he wanted to know if others would score the
protocols in the same way. Other judges independently scored a sample of responses, and he
calculated the degree to which all raters agreed.

KOHLBERG’S STAGES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT

Level 1: Preconventional level
At the preconventional level, morality is externally controlled. Rules imposed by authority figures
are conformed to in order to avoid punishment or receive rewards. This perspective involves the
idea that what is right is what one can get away with or what is personally satisfying. Level 1 has
two stages.

Stage 1: Punishment/obedience orientation

Behaviour is determined by consequences. The individual will obey in order to avoid
punishment.

Stage 2: Instrumental purpose orientation

Behaviour is determined again by consequences. The individual focuses on receiving
rewards or satisfying personal needs.

Level 2: Conventional level

At the conventional level, conformity to social rules remains important to the individual. However,
the emphasis shifts from self-interest to relationships with other people and social systems. The
individual strives to support rules that are set forth by others such as parents, peers, and the
government in order to win their approval or to maintain social order.
 Stage 3: Good Boy/Nice Girl orientation
Behaviour is determined by social approval. The individual wants to maintain or win the
affection and approval of others by being a “good person.”

Stage 4: Law and order orientation

Social rules and laws determine behaviour. The individual now takes into consideration a
larger perspective, that of societal laws. Moral decision making becomes more than
consideration of close ties to others. The individual believes that rules and laws maintain
social order that is worth preserving.

Level 3: Postconventional or principled level

At the postconventional level, the individual moves beyond the perspective of his or her own
society. Morality is defined in terms of abstract principles and values that apply to all situations
and societies. The individual attempts to take the perspective of all individuals.

Stage 5: Social contract orientation

Individual rights determine behaviour. The individual views laws and rules as flexible tools for
improving human purposes. That is, given the right situation, there are exceptions to rules.
When laws are not consistent with individual rights and the interests of the majority, they do
not bring about good for people and alternatives should be considered.

Stage 6: Universal ethical principle orientation

According to Kohlberg, this is the highest stage of functioning. However, he claimed that
some individuals will never reach this level. At this stage, the appropriate action is
determined by one’s self-chosen ethical principles of conscience. These principles are
abstract and universal in application. This type of reasoning involves taking the perspective
of every person or group that could potentially be affected by the decision.

Activity:
Present a role play for the stages of Moral Development.