ACCOUNTABILITY OF

MORAL ACT
LESSON 2
INTRODUCTION

• What is the moral agent's accountability over

his/her act?
• On what does his/her accountability depend?
ACTIVITY

• Read the story of Juda’s betrayal of Jesus in Luke

22:1-53
ANALYSIS

• Could Judas be held answerable/accountable for

having betrayed Jesus?
• On what factors would your base Judas
accountability?
LESSON PROPER
Bases of Moral Accountability

• Says Fr. Coppens (2017):

• When I perform a free act -- one which I am able
to do or not to do, as I choose -- the act is
evidently imputable to me: if the thing is
blameworthy, the blame belongs to me: if it is
praiseworthy, I am entitled to the praise. Every
human act therefore, since it is a free act, is
imputable to him who performs it.
Bases of Moral Accountability

• To whom are we accountable?

• For violation of government laws.
• How about violations of moral standards?
• For non-theistic morality, violators are
accountable solely to themselves.
Bases of Moral Accountability

• Three bases for moral accountability:

• Knowledge - a human act must be done knowingly
• Freedom - it must be done freely
• Voluntariness - it must be done voluntarily
• To be credited for a good act or held morally liable
or responsible for an evil act, a person must have
done it knowingly, willingly and voluntarily.
Bases of Moral Accountability

• For you to be morally responsible for your act, you must,

first, have knowledge, that is, you are in possession of a
normal mind; you are not insane or totally ignorant, sleep-
walking due to somnambulism.
• Knowledge is "the awareness of or familiarity with a fact,
situation, or truth, unveiled through experience or
disclosed in dialogue or encounter with persons or things.“
• To have genuine knowledge, your mind must be normal,
not impaired or vitiated, by mental condition or ignorance.
Bases of Moral Accountability

• Secondly, the act is freely done. This happens when

you can exercise your power of choice. If the act you
intend to do is a choice between stealing or not
stealing, then you must have the freedom to choose
which to do. Your freedom should not be impaired by
an irresistible force or uncontrollable fear. If the act
you intend to choose is testifying as to your personal
knowledge, what you saw, heard, etc, you should be
free to do so, without being subjected to an
uncontrollable fear of being silenced by death
Bases of Moral Accountability

• Thirdly, the act must be voluntary, that is, the act is either
intentional or negligent.
• An act is voluntarily intended when it is done with the aim,
purpose, or goal of attaining a result.
• An act is negligent when it is done voluntarily, but with out
care or precaution in avoiding the happening of a foreseeable
event.
• You can be morally liable either by intentional act or negligent
failure to exercise care and precaution. "A voluntary act
proceeds from the will and depends upon the will for its
performance." When something is done purely by accident, this
is referred to as fortuitous event, act of God.
MODIFIERS OF HUMAN ACT
Modifiers of Human Act

• Modifiers of Human Acts - are various factors which

either increase or decrease accountability.
• These are analogous to exempting, mitigating,
aggravating and justifying circumstances in criminal
law. “
• They affect the mental or emotional state of a
person to the extent that the voluntariness involved
in an act is either increased or decreased.
• They are as follows: 1) ignorance, 2) passions, 3)
fear, and 4) violence. (Panizo, 1964)
IGNORANCE

• Ignorance is the absence of knowledge." There are

various degrees of ignorance. Traditional ethics
classifies them as vincible, invincible, affected, and
supine or gross ignorance.
• "Ignorance, whether of the law or of the facts, is
either vincible or invincible.
• When it cannot be overcome by the due amount of
diligence, it is invincible; otherwise, it is vincible.
IGNORANCE

• The latter is said to be gross or supine when

scarcely an effort has been made to remove it; and if
a person deliberately avoids enlightenment in order
to sin more freely, his ignorance is affected."
• The basic rule is invincible ignorance, one that is
beyond one's ability to overcome, is entirely
involuntary, and hence removes moral responsibility:
vincible ignorance does not free us from
responsibility.
PASSION

• Passion refers to positive emotions like love,

desire, delight, hope, and bravery and negative
emotions like hatred, horror, sadness, despair,
fear and anger.
• "Antecedent passions those that precede the act,
do not always destroy voluntariness, but they
diminish accountability for the resultant act.
PASSION

• In criminal law, the commission of a criminal act

"with passion and obfuscation" means the perpetrator
is blinded by his emotions lessening his
accountability from maximum to medium or from
medium to minimum.
• Consequent passions are those that are intentionally
aroused and kept. They do not lessen voluntariness,
but may increase accountability." (Panizo, 1964).
FEAR

• Fear is the disturbance of the mind of a person

due to an impending danger or harm to himself or
loved ones.
• Acts done with fear is voluntary, but acts done
because of intense or uncontrollable fear or panic
are involuntary.
VIOLENCE

• Violence refers to any physical force exerted on a

person by another free agent for the purpose of
compelling said person to act against his will.
• Actions performed by person subjected to
violence or irresistible force are involuntary and
not accountable.
Moral Accountability for What Could Have
Been
• It is termed as sin of omission.
• Whatever one fails to do but which should have been
done is also imputable to him. This refers to failure
to act despite knowledge of being free, therefore
different from negligence or lack of foresight.
• It is intentionally not doing same thing when one
should have done it. It is failing to act as a Good
Samaritan when one should have acted as such.
TAKEAWAYS

• There are three bases for moral accountability,

namely: knowledge, freedom and voluntariness
• These are the necessary conditions for the
accountability of actions: 1) a human act must be
done knowingly: 2) It must be done freely and 3) It
must be done voluntarily.
• Modifiers of human acts either increase or decrease
accountability. These are analogous to exempting,
mitigating, aggravating and Justifying circumstances
in criminal law.
TAKEAWAYS

• Invincible ignorance cannot be overcome by due

amount of diligence while vincible ignorance can be
overcome. Invincible Ignorance, one that is beyond
one's ability to overcome, is entirely involuntary, and
hence removes moral responsibility: vincible
ignorance does not free us from responsibility
• Gross or supine ignorance exists when scarcely an
effort has been made to remove it while affected
ignorance exists when a person deliberately avoids
enlightenment infreely to sin more freely
TAKEAWAYS

• Antecedent passion decreases moral accountability

while consequent passion does not decrease
voluntariness so increases moral accountability
• Acts done with fear is voluntary, but acts done
because of intense or uncontrollable fear or panic
are involuntary
• Actions performed by person subjected to violence or
irresistible force are involuntary and, therefore, the
person is not accountable.
HUMAN ACT
ACTIVITY

• Reflect on this:
• “Madaling maging tao. Mahirap magpakatao.”
• “To err is human, to forgive is divine.”

Sample Footer Text 2/8/20XX 2

Act of Man versus Human Act
• Human Acts
• Fr. Coppens, (2017) "human acts are those of which a man
is master, which he has the power of doing or not doing as
he pleases.“
• Panizo, (1964) "human acts are those acts which proceed
from man as a rational being.“
• In other words, human acts are the acts of a moral agent.

Sample Footer Text 2/8/20XX 3

Act of Man versus Human Act
• Acts of Man
• “Actions committed by unconscious and insane persons, infants,
or by those who are physically forced to do something, are not
considered as human acts but acts of man."
• Likewise, "actions which merely happen in the body or through the
body without the awareness of the mind or the control of the will
are not human acts but merely acts of man."
• Examples of acts of man are breathing, blinking of the eyes,
dilation of pupil of the eye, perspiring and jerking of the knee.
Sample Footer Text 2/8/20XX 4
The Determinants of the Morality of
Human Act
• Rev. Coppens, S.J. says that to know whether an
individual human act is morally good, three things are
considered. These are called the determinants of
morality, namely,
• a) the object of the act,
• b) the end, or purpose, and
• c) its circumstances.
Sample Footer Text 2/8/20XX 5
The Determinants of the Morality of
Human Act
• For an act to be morally good, all three
determinants must be without a flaw, according to
the received axiom: "Bonum ex integra causa,
malum ex quocumque defectu" –
• "A thing to be good must be wholly so; it is not
vitiated by any defect."
Sample Footer Text 2/8/20XX 6
The Determinants of the Morality of
Human Act
• The object of an act is the thing done. In reality, it is not
distinct from the act itself; for we cannot act without doing
something, and that thing that is done is the object of the
act; say, of going, eating, praising, etc.
• But for an individual human act to be good, its object,
whether considered in itself or as further specified, must be
free from all defect; it must be good, or at least indifferent.
• The object of the act is the act itself.

Sample Footer Text 2/8/20XX 7

The Determinants of the Morality of
Human Act
• The end, or purpose intended by the agent is the second
determinant of an act's morality. The end here spoken of is not the
end of the work, for that pertains to the object, but the end of the
workman or agent. No matter how good the object of an act may
be, if the end intended is bad, the act is thereby vitiated, spoiled or
impaired.
• The end, or purpose is the intention of the acting subject, or what
inspires the acting subject.
• The guiding rule is the end does not justify the means.

Sample Footer Text 2/8/20XX 8

The Determinants of the Morality of
Human Act
• The circumstances of time, place and persons have their part in
determining the morality of an individual act. The moral character of an act
may be so affected by attendant circumstances, that an act good in itself
may be evil when accompanied by certain circumstances; for instance, it
is good to give drink to the thirsty, but if the thirsty man is morally weak,
and the drink is intoxicating, the act may be evil. (Coppens, 2017)
• The circumstances, including the consequences, refer to the time, place,
person, and conditions surrounding the moral act. They either increase or
diminish the moral goodness or evil of human acts.

Sample Footer Text 2/8/20XX 9

The Determinants of the Morality of
Human Act
• A morally good act requires the goodness of the
object, of the end, and of the circumstances
together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the
object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting
"in order to be seen by men").

Sample Footer Text 2/8/20XX 10

TAKEAWAYS
• A human act is an action that is considered to be carried out
voluntarily, whereas an act of man is an involuntary action.
• A human act is an act on which an Individual can make a
conscious decision whether or not to carry out that act. An act of
man Is the natural act of vegetative and sense faculties such as
digestion, the beating of the heart, growing, bodily reactions and
visual or auditory perceptions.
•

Sample Footer Text 2/8/20XX 11

TAKEAWAYS
• For an individual human act to be moral, Its object must be free from all
defect; It must be good, or at least indifferent. The end or purpose
intended by the agent for that act must likewise be good.
• Circumstances surrounding the human act such as time, place, person,
and conditions surrounding the moral act may either increase or diminish
the moral goodness or evil of a human act.
• A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of
the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the
object is good in itself.
•

Sample Footer Text 2/8/20XX 12

Feeling as a Modifier of
Moral Decision-Making
LESSON 3
 ACTIVITY

• “Feelings are something you have; not something

you are.”― Shannon L. Alder
• “How you react emotionally is a choice in any
situation.” ― Judith Orloff
• “When a man is prey to his emotions, he is not his
own master.” ― Benedict de Spinoza
 ACTIVITY

• “I will never be able to forgive myself if I won’t fly

home to be with my family in my father’s death. I
may not be able to talk to him anymore, you may
find it impractical and unreasonable but I have to
fly home. If I don’t, I will not feel whole at all.”
– Filipina OFW in the USA
 ACTIVITY

• What does “If it feels good do it”? Is this always

right?
• Would you consider the Filipina nurse’s decision to
fly home right? Why or why not?
 Feelings in Decision-making

• Feeling, in general, is an emotional state or reaction,

experience of physical sensation, like feeling of joy, feeling
of warmth, love, affection, tenderness, etc.
• "Several studies conclude that up to 90 percent of the
decisions we made are based on emotion. We use logic to
justify our actions to ourselves and to others." Researches
also show that "actual emotional states can influence the
process of moral reasoning and determine moral judgment.
 Feelings in Decision-making

• Feelings are instinctive and trained response to

moral dilemma. They can be obstacles to making
right decisions but they can also help in making the
right decisions.
 Positive Effects of Feelings or Emotions on
Decision Making
• A totally emotional decision is very fast in
comparison to a rational decision. This is reactive
(and largely subconscious) and can be useful when
faced with immediate danger, or in decisions of
minimal significance.
• Emotions may provide a way for coding and
compacting experience, enabling fast response
selection. This may point to why expert's "gut" level
decisions have high accuracy rates.
 Positive Effects of Feelings or Emotions on
Decision Making
• Decisions that start with logic may need emotions
to enable the final selection, particularly when
confronted with near equal options.
• Emotions often drive us in directions conflicting
with self-interest.
 Negative Effects of Feelings or Emotions on
Decision Making
• We make quick decisions without knowing why, and
then create rational reasons to justify a poor
emotional decision.
• Intensity of emotions can override rational
decision-making in cases where it is clearly needed.
 Negative Effects of Feelings or Emotions on
Decision Making
• Immediate and unrelated emotions can create mistakes
by distorting and creating bias in judgments. In some
cases this can lead to unexpected and reckless action.
• Projected emotions can lead to errors because people
are subject to systemic inaccuracy about how they will
feel in the future." (Source: Decision Innovation
(file://Users/macos/Downloads/ Emotional20Decsion
20Making htmlaccessed, 2-3-2018)
 Moral Statements As Expressions Of
Feelings
• Are moral statements or values mere expressions of
feelings or emotions as claimed by the linguistic
philosophers?
• According to some linguistic philosophers, called
(emotivists) the statement "stealing is wrong" is not
a statement of fact, it is an expression of a desire
or emotion. The rule or maxim "Stealing is wrong"
means "I desire that you do not steal." not
verifiable.
 Moral Statements As Expressions Of
Feelings
• An emotional statement is not verifiable like
factual statement. "Pedro stole my cat" is
verifiable, can be established by evidence. But
"Pedro's act of stealing my cat is morally wrong"
which is equivalent to "I desire that Pedro should
not steal" is not verifiable.
 Moral Statements As Expressions Of
Feelings
• Emotivism... is the view that moral judgments do
not function as statements of fact but rather as
expressions of the speaker's or writer's feelings.
According to the emotivist, when we say "You acted
wrongly in stealing that money,” we are not
expressing any fact beyond that stated by “You
stole that money.”
 Moral Statements As Expressions Of
Feelings
• It is, however, as if we had stated this fact with a
special tone of abhorrence, for in saying that
something is wrong, we are expressing our feelings
of disapproval toward it. Emotivism was expounded
by A. J Aver in Language, Truth and Logic (1936) and
developed by Charles Stevenson in Ethics and
Language (1945)
 Moral Statements As Expressions Of
Feelings
• The emotivist thus goes further by saying that
ethical statements being emotional expressions are
not verifiable.
• Emotional expressions are not assertions of what is
true or false. They are like expressions of taste.
There is no dispute or there can be no dispute on
matters of taste. "De gustibus non disputandum
est.” One cannot argue with one's taste, emotion.
 Moral Statements As Expressions Of
Feelings
• It may be said that an analogy between legal and moral statement
may be made to show that moral statements may treated like a
factual statement. In criminal law, the allegation that "Juan's act of
stealing is wrong" may be established by evaluating the act in the
light of the elements of the crime of stealing under the law. For
instance, the law provides that stealing is taking the property of
another without the latter's consent. So if there is an evidence that
Juan has taken a property, that the property belongs to someone
else, that the taking is without consent, then it can be decided that
a crime of theft is committed; in other words, the statement has
been verified.
 Moral Statements As Expressions Of
Feelings
• What then would prevent one in applying the same
procedure in establishing the truth or falsehood of a moral
statement. For instance, the moral principle or rule is
"stealing is wrong that it is explained by moral or ethics
teachers that the statement is meant to be referring to an
act of taking someone else property without the owner's
consent. May not someone's act of stealing be verified by
finding out if the actor has indeed taken someone's
property with the latter's consent? And that, therefore, his
act may be judged as wrong?
 Moral Statements As Expressions Of
Feelings
• The emotivist will still argue that such argument only
proves that a certain individual act has characteristic that
can be described as stealing. It does not make the
statement "stealing is wrong" as a factual statement, which
is correct, since all maxims or rules are non-factual and
only the particular instances evaluated on the basis of
these rules would be considered as factual.
 Managing Feelings

• "Anyone can get angry---that is easy---but to do this

to the right person, to the right extent, at the right
time with the right motive, and in the right way,
that is not for everyone, nor is it easy. (Book II,
Nicomachean Ethics).
• In other words your anger should not be displaced.
The moral person manages his/her feelings well.
 TAKEAWAYS

• Feelings can be obstacles to making right decisions but they can

also help in making the right decisions.
• Feelings can help persons in making the right decisions if they
are reasonably managed.
• Acting on one's convictions imply involvement of both reason
and feeling.
• One teaches effectively when he/she touches the heart. This is
the main feature of value education that works.
• To be an ethical person, one must manage his/her feelings well.
Your father was diagnosed with stage 4 prostate cancer, you are the only member in your family
who knew this sad news and that even your father did not know about the real status of his
condition. When you broke the news to your family (mother, and siblings) you started to discuss
whether to tell it to your father or not.
How can you solve this dilemma using SCOTT RAE'S 7 STEPS OF MORAL REASONING

First, gather the facts, information. "The simplest way of clarifying an ethical
dilemma is to make sure the facts are clear. Ask: Do you have all the facts that are
necessary to make a good decision? What do we know? What do we need to know?"
Second, determine the ethical issues, similar to "statement of the
problem." ".. The competing interests are what create the dilemma. Moral values
and virtues must support the competing interests in order for an ethical dilemma to
exist. If you cannot identify the underlying values/ virtues then you do not have an
ethical dilemma. Often people hold these positions strongly and with passion
because of the value/virtue beneath them."
Third, determine what virtues/principles have a bearing on the case. This is
similar to identifying the relevant factors (internal and external). "In an ethical
dilemma certain values and principles are central to the competing positions.
Identify these. Determine if some should be given more weight than others. Ask
what the source for the principle is constitution, culture, natural law, religious
tradition... These supplement biblical principles."
Fourth, list the alternatives or develop a list of options. "Creatively determine
possible courses of action for your dilemma. Some will almost immediately be
discarded but generally the more you list the greater potential for coming up with a
really good one. It will also help you come up with a broader selection of ideas."
Fifth, compare the alternatives with the virtues/principles. "This step
eliminates alternatives as they are weighed by the moral principles which have a
bearing on the case. Potentially the issue will be resolved here as all alternatives
except one are eliminated. Here you must satisfy all the relevant virtues and values
- so at least some of the alternatives will be eliminated (even if you still have to go
on to step 6). Often here you have to weigh principles and virtues each weighing."
make sure you have a good reason for
Sixth, consider the consequences or test the options. "If you disclose the
information directly possible consequences include; family feel alienated, cultural
values have been violated - family may take patient to another hospital - patient
may 'give up' - patient might be happy they are finally being told the truth." If you
continue withholding information possible consequences include; - patient continues
to be fearful and anxious about the treatment patient finds out somehow and trust
is compromised - family are happy cultural values are being respected.
Seventh, make a decision. "Ethical decisions rarely have pain-free solutions - it
might be you have to choose the solution with the least number of problems/painful
consequences. Even when making a "good" decision you might still lose sleep over
it!"
Reason and Impartiality as
Minimum Requirements for
Morality

LESSON 4
ACTIVITY – Read these arguments. Are these
based on reason? Defend your answer.

 1. "You didn't even finish high school. How could you possibly know
about this?"
 2. I am filing for reconsideration of the offenses complained about.
Since I am a well-known athlete, I can make your University great
again.
 3. Oh, Officer, there's no reason to give me a traffic ticket for going
too fast because I was just on my way to the hospital to bring blood
bags to my dying child. They are needed in a few minutes.
ACTIVITY – Read these arguments. Are these
based on reason? Defend your answer

 4. After Sally presents an eloquent and compelling case for a more

equitable taxation system, Sam asks the audience whether we
should believe anything from a woman who isn't married, was once
arrested, and smells a bit weird.
 5. Linus Pauling, winner of two unshared Nobel prizes, one for
chemistry, another for peace, stated his daily medication of
Vitamin C delayed the onset of his cancer by twenty years.
Therefore, vitamin C is effective in preventing cancer.
ACTIVITY – Read these arguments. Are these
based on reason? Defend your answer

 6. "UFOs are not real, because the great Carl Sagan said so." You
haven't held a steady job since 1992. Worse than that, we couldn't
find a single employer who'd provide you with a good reference."
 7. "People like you don't understand what it's like to grow up in the
slums. You have no right to argue about the gang violence on our
streets."
ACTIVITY – Read these arguments. Are these
based on reason? Defend your answer

 8. "Well, it's not like you graduated from a good school, so I can see
why you wouldn't know how to properly grade a writing
assignment."
 9. "You're clearly just too young to understand."
 10. "How can you make a decision about someone having marital
problems if you've never been married yourself?"
ABSTRACTION

The minimum requirements of morality are reason and

impartiality.
 “Moral judgments must be backed up by good reason
and impartiality. "Morality requires the impartial
consideration of each individual's interests."
Moral judgments, or resolving a dilemma of moral
judgments must be backed by good reason.
ABSTRACTION

Reason and impartiality refer to a mental activity

following the basic principle of consistency, the lack of
contradiction between one idea and another.
It is a process of deriving necessary conclusion from
premises, avoiding all forms of deception or fallacy of
reasoning.
ABSTRACTION

It avoids ad hominem, by not attacking the personality of

the opponent and instead directing one's argument
against his idea.
Examples of argumentum ad hominem are # 1, 4, 8 and 9
in the Activity phase.
ABSTRACTION

1. "You didn't even finish high school. How could you
possibly know about this?“
4. After Sally presents an eloquent and compelling case
for a more equitable taxation system, Sam asks the
audience whether we should believe anything from a
woman who isn't married, was once arrested, and smells
a bit weird.
ABSTRACTION

8. "Well, it's not like you graduated from a good school, so
I can see why you wouldn't know how to properly grade a
writing assignment.“
9. "You're clearly just too young to understand."
ABSTRACTION

Reason avoids ad misericordiam, appeal to pity, since

appearing miserable does not improve an argument.
Reason does not resort to ad verecundiam, appeal to
authority, one's power and influence cannot make a
wrong right.
Examples of argumentum ad verecundiam are # 2, 5, 6, 7
and 10. In other words, good reasons include consistent
and coherent reasons.
ABSTRACTION

 2. I am filing for reconsideration of the offenses complained about.

Since I am a well-known athlete, I can make your University great
again.
 5. Linus Pauling, winner of two unshared Nobel prizes, one for
chemistry, another for peace, stated his daily medication of
Vitamin C delayed the onset of his cancer by twenty years.
Therefore, vitamin C is effective in preventing cancer.
ABSTRACTION

 6. "UFOs are not real, because the great Carl Sagan said so." You
haven't held a steady job since 1992. Worse than that, we couldn't
find a single employer who'd provide you with a good reference."
 7. "People like you don't understand what it's like to grow up in the
slums. You have no right to argue about the gang violence on our
streets.“
 10. "How can you make a decision about someone having marital
problems if you've never been married yourself?"
ABSTRACTION

 A logical, impartial, objective reason avoids ambiguities like

equivocation, circular reasoning, amphibology, etc. Coherent
reasoning is needed to establish truth and meaningfulness of moral
judgments.
 "Morality requires impartial consideration of each individual's
interest." In arriving at a sound moral judgment you must listen to
everyone trying to speak. Biases and prejudices must be placed
between brackets, suspended.
ABSTRACTION

Everyone's message, silent or verbal, should be allowed to

be unveiled, Everyone has always something to tell. No
one has a monopoly of the truth. A moral subject must be
seen from various perspectives and standpoints.
Dilemma

Your father was diagnosed with stage 4 prostate cancer,

you are the only member in your family who knew this sad
news and that even your father did not know about the
real status of his condition. When you broke the news to
your family (mother, and siblings) you started to discuss
whether to tell it to your father or not.
How can you solve this dilemma using SCOTT RAE'S 7 STEPS
OF MORAL REASONING
SCOTT RAE'S 7 STEPS OF MORAL
REASONING
First, gather the facts, information.

"The simplest way of clarifying an ethical dilemma is to

make sure the facts are clear. Ask: Do you have all the
facts that are necessary to make a good decision? What
do we know? What do we need to know?"
Second, determine the ethical issues,
similar to "statement of the problem.

The competing interests are what create the dilemma.

Moral values and virtues must support the competing
interests in order for an ethical dilemma to exist. If you
cannot identify the underlying values/ virtues then you do
not have an ethical dilemma. Often people hold these
positions strongly and with passion because of the
value/virtue beneath them."
Third, determine what virtues/principles
have a bearing on the case.

This is similar to identifying the relevant factors (internal

and external). "In an ethical dilemma certain values and
principles are central to the competing positions. Identify
these. Determine if some should be given more weight
than others. Ask what the source for the principle is
constitution, culture, natural law, religious tradition... These
supplement biblical principles."
Fourth, list the alternatives or develop a list
of options.

"Creatively determine possible courses of action for your

dilemma. Some will almost immediately be discarded but
generally the more you list the greater potential for
coming up with a really good one. It will also help you
come up with a broader selection of ideas."
Fifth, compare the alternatives with the
virtues/principles.

"This step eliminates alternatives as they are weighed by

the moral principles which have a bearing on the case.
Potentially the issue will be resolved here as all alternatives
except one are eliminated. Here you must satisfy all the
relevant virtues and values - so at least some of the
alternatives will be eliminated (even if you still have to go
on to step 6). Often here you have to weigh principles
and virtues each weighing."
Sixth, consider the consequences or test
the options.

"If you disclose the information directly possible

consequences include; family feel alienated, cultural
values have been violated - family may take patient to
another hospital - patient may 'give up' - patient might be
happy they are finally being told the truth." If you
continue withholding information possible consequences
include; - patient continues to be fearful and anxious
about the treatment, patient finds out somehow and trust
is compromised - family are happy cultural values are
being respected.
Sixth, consider the consequences or test
the options.

In general, the following may be used to test the options:

(Davis,1999)
• Harm test: Does this option do less harm than the
alternatives?
• Publicity test: Would I want my choice of this option
published in the newspaper?
Sixth, consider the consequences or test
the options.

• Defensibility test: Could I defend my choice of this

option before a congressional committee or committee
of peers?
• Reversibility test: Would I still think this option was a
good choice if I were adversely affected by it?
Sixth, consider the consequences or test
the options.

• Colleague test: What do my colleagues say when I

describe my problem and suggest this option as my
solution?
• Professional test: What might my profession's governing
body for ethics say about this option?
• Organization test: What does my company's ethics
officer or legal counsel say about this?
Seventh, make a decision.

"Ethical decisions rarely have pain-free solutions - it might

be you have to choose the solution with the least number
of problems/painful consequences. Even when making a
"good" decision you might still lose sleep over it!"
Values Clarification
Values Clarification

 Moral reasoning either arrives at what is right or wrong, good or bad

(valuable or not valuable). The moral reasoning process may thus
follow a model called values clarification.
 Values clarification method as a part of the moral reasoning model
consists of a series of questions which one may ask himself or others
in order to arrive at one's true values, values that he really possesses
and acts upon. The following consists of the steps of the values
clarification model: (Raths, L. et al, 1978)
Values Clarification

 1. Choosing freely
 Did you choose this value freely? Where do you suppose you first
got that idea?" or "Are you the only one among your friends who
feels this way?"
 2. Choosing from alternatives
 "What reasons do you have for your choice?" or "How long did you
think about this problem before you decided?"
Values Clarification

 3. Choosing after thoughtful consideration

 "What would happen if this choice were implemented? If another
choice was implemented?" or "What is good about this choice?
What could be good about the other choices?"
 4. Prizing and being happy with the choice
 "Are you happy about feeling this way?" or "Why is this important to
you?"
Values Clarification

 5. Prizing and willing to affirm the choice publicly

 "Would you be willing to tell the class how you feel?" or "Should
someone who feels like you stand up in public and tell people how
he or she feels?”
 6. Acting on the choice
 "What will you do about your choice? What will you do next?" or
"Are you interested in joining this group of people who think the
same as you do about this?"
Values Clarification

 7. Acting repeatedly in some pattern of life

 "Have you done anything about it? Will you do it again?" or "Should
you try to get other people interested in this?”
The 7 questions can be summed up into 3
big clarifying questions:

 1) Did you choose your action freely from among alternatives after
thoughtfully considering the consequences of each alternative;
 2) Do you prize or cherish your choice by publicly affirming it and by
campaigning for others to choose it?;
 3) Do you act on your choice repeatedly and consistently? If the
answers to the questions are a YES, then the moral choice or moral
decision can be said to be a product of reason.
 THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN REASON
AND WILL
The Difference Between
Reason and Will
• The moral person is endowed with an intellect and
will. The "will" is what "disposes" what the "the
intellect proposes."
• Reason conducts the study, research, investigation,
fact-finding. It uses logic, the principle of consistency,
avoids fallacious reasoning to come up with a truthful
and accurate proposition.
• In a research study, the product or work of reason is
the body of facts gathered, organized, synthesized
and evaluated. The job of the will is to make a decisive
conclusion.
The Difference Between
Reason and Will
• The will is the faculty of the mind that is associated
with decision making. It's the one that says yes or no.
• This author says this, that author says that, all others
are saying the same thing. Now, decide with your will
what you yourself should say or think.
The Difference Between
Reason and Will
• Decision making which is an activity of the will can be
developed. Early in life, like children, one should already be
given the opportunity to exercise his will, like being trained
to make choices from alternative.
• This is true of societies where a culture of choice give
opportunities for the development of the will. A culture of
spoon feeding does not develop the will.
• Banking education, a method of teaching where the
teacher simply deposits facts and concepts and withdraw
the same periodically during quizzes and tests without
encouraging the students to think and reflect, does not
promote the development of the will.
The Difference Between
Reason and Will
• Jean Paul Sartre, the French Philosopher, and the most
popular existentialist was saying that an individual person
is nothing until he/she starts making decisions.
• What ultimately constitutes who a person is are his/her
decisions. The essence of being a person equals his/her
bundle of decisions.
• Apparently, the mark of the maturation of culture is
manifested through the development of a culture of moral
strength or virtue, or will power, its free will. "Free Will" is
the "capacity of rational agents to choose a course of
action from among various alternatives."
The Difference Between
Reason and Will
• Free will is the ability to choose between different
possible courses of action unimpeded, the power or
right to act, speak, or think as one wants. It is the
power of self-determination. When the will is free,
there is freedom.
• To Hornedo (1972), the stuff of the free will is a multi-
dimensional power, energy, or strength. One is free to
the degree that he has energy, that is, physically free
to the degree that he is physically strong; materially
or economically free to the degree that he is
materially or economically strong, and so on.
The Difference Between
Reason and Will
• Emphasis is made on what freedom is, and not on
what it is not. To say that one is free when there is an
absence of obstacle is to give a picture of a weak
person who cannot walk to get out his room despite
an open door. Freedom must not only be understood
as the absence of obstacle; it must be an autonomous
energy.
The Difference Between
Reason and Will
• It is useless talking about being free to move, walk, if
you have no strength to move or walk. It is useless
saying you are free to go to Manila by bus, if you have
no money for your fare.
• Freedom implies power, energy, strength in all human
dimensions, as the stuff of freedom. A free person is
one who is physically healthy and strong,
psychologically normal, financially stable.
The Difference Between
Reason and Will
• It is useless shouting in the streets for "economic
freedom" if one is economically weak. In terms of
morality, moral strength is moral freedom. Morally
strong people would not allow a tyrant to thrive or
last long. In the words of Jose Rizal is the statement,
there can be no tyrants where there can be no slaves."
The Courage To Be
"Purity of heart is to will one thing," says
Kierkegaard. But to "will one thing” needs
courage.
According to Paul Tillich (1952), "courage is
self-affirmation "in-spite-of,' that is in spite of
that which tends to prevent the self from
affirming itself." Courage is "the affirmation
of being in-spite of non-being."
This implies affirming, accepting oneself in-
spite of one's defects, lack, or imperfections,
affirming the world we live in in-spite all that
it lacks.
In specific terms, courage is affirming,
allowing the drug addict or drug dependent
to live in-spite of his drug addiction.
The Courage To Be
. "Our greatest glory is not in never falling,
but in rising every time we fall." Courage is
not giving up because of setbacks and
failures. It is keeping right on keeping on.
Political will means the courage to promote
the greatest good of the greatest number in-
spite of their selfishness, greed, and unruly
behavior.
Commitment, engagement, fidelity,
authentic existence are all forms of
"affirmation of being in-spite of non-being."
Courage is affirming the world in-spite of its
tragedies. The last line in Desiderata says it
so, "with all its sham, drudgery and broken
dreams, it is still a beautiful world."