PART II

THE ACT
 INTRODUCTION

▫ The topic provides models in which us, students can make

reasoned and impartial ethical decisions and understand
why reason is not enough in carrying out their ethical
decisions as well.

2
 REASON AND
IMPARTIALITY AS MINIMUM
REQUIREMENTS FOR
MORALITY

3
How can we make reasoned and impartial decision?
▫ A reasoned decision is a decision which contains reason
in its support.
▫ When the adjudicating bodies give reasons in support of
their decisions, the decisions are treated as a reasoned
decision. It is also called speaking order.
▫ Impartial Decisions – impartiality is the idea that the
same ethical standards are applied to everyone.

4
5
REASON
▫ is the basis or motive for
an action, decision, or
conviction.

6
 REASON
▫ In making moral
judgements, it must be
backed up with
reasons.

7
REASON
▫ 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.

8
REASON

▫ It also spells the differences of moral judgements from

mere expressions of personal preference.
▫ Thus, reason commends what it commends, regardless of
our feelings, attitudes, opinions, and desires

9
Impartiality

10
Impartiality

▫ Equal treatment of all.

▫ Involves the idea that
each individual’s
interests and point of
view are equally
important.

11
 ▫ A principle of justice.

▫ Decisions ought to be based on

objective criteria, rather than on
the basis of bias, prejudice, or
preferring the benefit to one
person over another for improper
reasons.

12
IMPARTIALITY
▫ 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, is equally important; that is, no one is
seen intrinsically more significant than anyone else.

13
Reason and Impartiality as Minimum Requirement for Morality

▫ Reason and impartiality become the basic prerequisite of

morality as one is expected to be able to deliver clear,
concise, rightful, and appropriate judgements made out of
logic and understanding in an unbiased and unprejudiced
manner while considering the general welfare to
accurately form moral decisions.

14
THE 7-STEP
MORAL
REASONING
MODEL
 Introduces the use of
REASON AND
IMPARTIALITY in deciding
on moral matters.

16
Moral Reasoning

▫ is sometimes affected by emotions which blinds us from

deciding and seeing what acts are needed to do what is
right from wrong.
▫ So in order to decide and do what is actually right, we
must do these steps in order to fairly do an act and not be
bias about anything.

17
The 7-step Moral Reasoning Model
by Scott B. Rae, Ph.D.

▫ Is a model for making ethical decisions with the use of

reason and impartiality on moral matters.

18
THE 7-STEP MORAL REASONING MODEL

1. Gather the facts.

2. Determine the ethical issues.
3. Identify the principles.
4. Listing the alternatives.
5. Comparing the alternatives with principles.
6. Weighing the consequences
7. Making a decision.

19
 1. GATHER THE FACTS

Determining what you

already know or the facts
at hand and what you are
going to do.

20
 First step in the Moral Reasoning Model 

▫ 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 must ask not only “what do we
know?” in order to generate an intelligent, ethical
decision.

21
Is there a moral dilemma?

▫ Not every choice we make needs to be deliberated upon as

a moral dilemma. Choosing what clothes to wear today,
what food to eat for lunch – while involving some tension
are not what moral dilemma is all about.

22
 First step in the Moral Reasoning Model 

▫ Some moral dilemmas can be resolved just by clarifying

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 of the case.

23
Gathering the facts

▫ Determine what you need to know about the problem to be

solved/decision to be made and what a successful decision
would look like.

24
 2. DETERMINE THE ETHICAL
ISSUES
These are the ethical or
moral issues needed to
be tackled or faced in a
certain situation that
may cause harm to an
individual.

25
 Second step in the Moral Reasoning Model

▫ The moral issues should be correctly stated in terms of

competing interests.
▫ It is these conflicting interest that practically make for a
moral dilemma.

26
 Second step the Moral Reasoning Model
▫ The issues must be presented in a P vs. Q format to reflect
the interest 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 someone’s right to make his/her decision
about medical care) vs. the sanctity of life (the duty to
preserve life).

27
Trigger Event: Identifying and Setting up the Ethical Problem

“The issue”

Every ethical problem has more than one component

and that not every component involves an ethical
decision.

28
Determine the ethical issues
▫ For instance, we should be able to separate a client’s right
to advertise from a possible ethical problem involving
the way the product is to be advertised.
▫ And the issue should be stated clearly. The question is not
whether the client should advertise, but whether the client
should advertise in a particular manner that might be
ethically problematic.

29
 3. IDENTIFY THE PRINCIPLES

It could refer to Biblical

Principles, Constitutional
Principles, Personal Principles or
principles drawn from natural
law, which guides a person in
making decisions. usually,
biblical principles weighs more
heavily than the others.

30
 Third step in the Moral Reasoning Model

▫ In any moral dilemma, there are sure moral values or

principles that 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 heavily than others.

31
Identifying the principles that have a bearing on the
case

▫ Recognized duties – like justice, gratitude, self-

improvement etc., allow us not only to list stakeholders
but also to decide on who they are.

32
EXAMPLE

▫ If, as a reporter, you are obligated by the duty of fidelity to

honor your implied contract with the public to give then
the news you want them to read, that reading public must
be listed as a stakeholder in your decision.

33
 4. LISTING THE ALTERNATIVES

Coming up with
various alternative
courses of action as
part of creative
thinking included in
resolving a moral
dilemma.
34
Fourth step in the Moral Reasoning Model

▫ This step involves coming up with the various alternative

courses of action as part of the creative thinking included
in resolving a moral dilemma.

35
Fourth step is listing the alternatives.

▫ 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.
▫ Also, you may come up with some very creative
alternatives that you had not considered before.

36
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.
▫ Nothing is ever either black or white; sometimes one is
forced to think in terms of a compromise , even if that
compromise doesn’t exactly conform to your personal
notion of what is the right thing to do.

37
 5. Comparing the alternatives with
principles.
Involves eliminating
alternatives
contradicting to the
principles we believe
in.

38
 Fifth step in the Moral Reasoning Model

▫ 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.

39
 Fifth step in the Moral Reasoning Model

▫ The purpose of this comparison is to determine is not

forthcoming, then the next step in the model should be
considered.
▫ Some of the alternatives, at the least, may be rejected by
this step of comparison.

40
 Compare alternatives with principles.

▫ In considering and evaluating the options, it will help to be

guided by the following approaches.
▫ This is the point at which the various sources of Christian
morality , ethical theories and principles come into play.

41
 Compare alternatives with principles.

▫ One will discover here that there is much conflict among

these. There are no easy solutions.
▫ While one person may use utilitarianism to support his
decision, another may decide to cite Kant’s proscription
against using a person as a means to an end.

42
EXAMPLE
▫ Utilitarianism
To run a story in the interest of many.

▫ Kant’s proscription
Not running a story because one must respect the privacy of a
person.

43
 Compare alternatives with principles.

▫ What is important here is to use only those

justifications that apply directly to one’s decision.

44
 6. Weighing the consequences.

In case the principle do

not produce a clear
decision, then consider
possible consequences
(positive & negative) in
your chosen alternatives.

45
 Sixth step is weighing 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.

46
 Sixth step is weighing the consequences.

▫ They should be informally weighted since some positive

consequences are more beneficial than others, and some
negative consequences are more detrimental than others.

47
Assess the consequences.
▫ What benefits and what harms will each option produce,
and which alternative will lead to the best overall
consequence?

▫ Double-checking one’s decision. It is important to take a

second look at the decision to be made.

48
Double-checking one’s decision to be done

▫ First, we must see to it that our arguments are consistent.

▫ Ethics is supposed to provide us with a guide for moral
living, and to do so, it must be rational – that is, free of
contradictions.

49
 Double-checking one’s decision to be done.

▫ Second, we must also ask if our arguments are 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.

50
 Double-checking one’s decision to be done.

▫ 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.

51
 Double-checking one’s decision to be done.

▫ Third, perhaps we can ask the following questions:

1. What are the best and worse-case scenarios if I choose

this particular option?
2. Can I honestly live with myself if I make this decision?
3. Will I be able to defend this decision to that claimant who
has lost the most or been harmed the most?

52
 Double-checking one’s decision to be done.
▫ Finally, our decision must be “enabling” and rathe than
“disabling”.
▫ There are decisions that prevent us from acting anymore
fruitfully or effectively.
▫ A decision that “disables” us prevents our growths as
person.

53
 7. Making a decision.

The decision made is

one that possesses the
least number of
negative consequence.

54
 The last but not the least step is making 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.

55
 The last but not the least step is making a decision.

▫ Normally, the decision that is made is one that possesses

the least number of problems or negative consequences,
not one that is devoid of them.

56
Make a decision.

▫ 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.

57
Make a decision.

▫ Some people make their decisions even prior to the

reasoning process.
▫ When this happens, it is possible to end up with a decision
that one can then rationalize but not really justify.

58