Module 1: Introduction of Key Concepts Characteristics of Moral Standards:

in Ethics
a) moral standards deal with matters we
think can seriously injure or benefit
humans, animals, and the environment, such
Culture and Context influences moral
as child abuse, rape, and murder;
beliefs and beliefs
b) moral standards are not established or
Muslim wearing hijab is traditional while
changed by the decisions of authoritative
Western societies doesn’t mind if women
individuals or bodies. Moral standards rest
barely cover their bodies.
on the adequacy of the reasons that are taken
The danger is that one culture may impose to support and justify them. For sure, we
its own cultural standard on others, which don’t need a law to back up our moral
may result in a clash in cultural values and conviction that killing innocent people is
beliefs. absolutely wrong;

Moral standards – moral issue; Non- c) moral standards are overriding, that is,
Moral standards – matter of taste. they take precedence over other standards
and considerations, especially of self-
If such standards are non-moral (that is, a interest;
matter of taste), then we don’t have the
right to impose them on others. But if such d) moral standards are based on
standards are moral ones, such as not killing impartial considerations. Hence, moral
or harming people, then we may have the standards are fair and just; and
right to force others to act accordingly.
e) moral standards are associated with
Moral Standards: special emotions (such as guilt and shame)
and vocabulary (such as right, wrong, good,
Moral standards are norms that individuals and bad).
or groups have about the kinds of actions
believed to be morally right or wrong, as Non-moral Standards:
well as the values placed on what we
Standards by which we judge what is good
believed to be morally good or morally bad.
or bad and right or wrong.
“the good” rights and obligations
Matters of taste of preference
Sum of combined norms and values
Moral Dilemmas: situation where an
Norms: general rules about our actions or agent’s obligations conflict.
behaviors
Principles of deontic logic such as the
Values: enduring beliefs or statements about ‘ought’ implies ‘can’ principle and the
what is good and desirable or not. agglomeration principle, which says that if
you ought to do a and ought to do b, then
you ought to do a and b, taken together with
the assumption that moral dilemmas exist,
turn out to entail a contradiction.
Three Levels of Moral Dilemma Excuses: reason for an action or omission
that reduces (vitiates) responsibility
The theory of moral dilemma is attributed to
Lawrence Kolberg's 1958 Stages of Moral Coercion may reduce but not completely
Development, and it contains three levels. eliminate responsibility. In milder cases, the
▪ Level 1. Preconventional is the time in term ‘duress’ is used. Example: you cheated
which a child's sense of morality comes on a test, but you did so partly because you
from authority figures in his or her life. were emotionally exhausted due to just
learning of the divorce of your parents as
▪ Level 2. Conventional is the time in
well as the death of a beloved dog, and you
which a child's sense of morality is
think you might be responsible for your
influenced by personal and social
roommates’ coming down with the plague.
interactions.
Harm and Voluntariness: It is sometimes
▪ Level 3. Post Conventional is when a
held that if you voluntarily agree to a
sense of morality is based on a person's
harmful activity (such as boxing), the harm
personal beliefs about right and wrong
caused to you is not a violation or an injury
and justice and injustice.
that should be compensated for
Forgiveness: “release”
Basic Foundations of Morality:
Interesting questions about forgiveness:
1. Harm/Care: attachment systems; ability
1) Can it sometimes be an obligation to
to feel (and dislike) the pain of others.
forgive another?
Kindness, gentleness, and nurturance
2) Or is forgiveness always or most often a
2. Fairness/reciprocity: reciprocal altruism.
gift?
Justice, rights, and autonomy
3) Is it possible to forgive someone who
3. Ingroup/loyalty: patriotism and self-
does not repent and, instead, continues doing
sacrifice for the group. “one for all, all for
some harm?
one”
4) Can you forgive someone a harm they did
4. Authority//respect: leadership and
but they are now dead?
followership (deference to legitimate
authority and respect for traditions) 5) Can you forgive not just individuals but
institutions or countries?
5. Purity/sanctity: psychology of disgust
and contamination, religious notions, noble Theories of Agency:
way. Body is a temple
Libertarianism: a free person has more
The Value of Freedom: than one possible future, which is up to them
This supports the idea that we value liberty Determinism: understand freedom without
for its own sake and would limit it only if a principle of alternative possibilities
there is reason to do so (it would harm
Compatibilism: is the view that everything
others or harm yourself or)
may be determined and yet persons are free
when (for example) they do what they want Cultural Relativism: the idea that what is
and are not being manipulated by some true and real exists independently of the
foreign agent. mind
Reason and Impartiality as Minimum Immanuel Kant: This opposition between
Requirements for Morality: pre-requisite realism and relativism was influenced by the
for morality (unbiased and unprejudiced work of Immanuel Kant in his Critique of
manner) Pure Reason, who argued that the material
and social world is mediated through our
Reason
minds: that people’s experience of the world
▪ Ability of the mind to think, understand, is mediated through the knowledge and
and form judgments by a process of logic. ideas they hold about the world.

▪ Innate and exclusive human ability that Cognitive relativism refers broadly to an
utilizes new or existing information as bases intellectual stance that rejects the idea of an
to consciously make sense out of things absolute viewpoint and the existence of
while applying logic. objective criteria for making judgments
about what is or is not real or true.
▪ It is also associated with thinking,
cognition, and intellect. Cultural relativism is associated with a
general tolerance and respect for difference,
Impartiality which refers to the idea that cultural context
▪ Manifesting objectivity is the quality of is critical to an understanding of people’s
being unbiased and objective in creating values, beliefs and practices.
moral decisions. Terms and Concepts
▪ Underscoring that a [morally] impartial ▪ Difference: Developed by feminists to
person makes moral decisions relative to the highlight the different experiences, voices
welfare of the majority and not for specific and psychologies of women in comparison
people alone. to men and also to draw attention to the way
these differences are part of power relations
and used to oppress women.
Module 2: The Moral Agent
▪ Epistemology: The theory of how we know
Culture: totality of the social environment what know.
into which a human being is being born and
in which he/she lives ▪ Ethnocentric: Unable to see difference and
universalizing values and ideas from the
Moral Development: The process through subject’s experience of her own ethnic
which a human being acquires sensibilities, group.
attitudes, beliefs, skills, and dispositions that
render him or her a morally mature or ▪ Objectivity: A detached and impartial
adequate human being. attitude associated with scientific inquiry.
▪ Positivism: Scientific method is viewed as
objective because its aim is to produce
trustworthy knowledge based on empirical distinctively human. When we are living
observation that can be repeated and tested well, our life is worthy of imitation and
by other researchers. praise.
▪ Rationality: A mode of action or decision- virtuous activity completes or perfects
making that is technical in character and human life.
based on reason.
Virtue as a Mean State
▪ Realism: the idea that what is true and real
The psychological unity of the virtuous
exists independently of the mind.
person and the disunity of non-virtuous
▪ Relativism: The idea that something (e.g. conditions. That the virtuous person’s
moral values, knowledge) is relative to a emotional responses are appropriate to the
particular framework (e.g. a culture, a situation indicates that her emotional
language) and that no standpoint is uniquely responses are in harmony with her correct
privileged over others. reasoning about what to do. Aristotle says
that the non-rational part of a virtuous
▪ Standpoint: Using the experiences of
person’s soul “speaks with the same voice”
social groups as a ground for theory and
(homophônei, Nicomachean Ethics
explanation.
1102b28) as the rational part. That the
Character: character – a mark impressed virtuous person’s soul is unified and not torn
upon a coin by conflict distinguishes the state of being
virtuous from various nonvirtuous
Assemblage of qualities that distinguish one conditions such as continence (enkrateia),
individual from another incontinence (akrasia), and vice (kakia) in
At the beginning of Book II of the general.
Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle tells us that Moral Education and the Human
there are two different kinds of human Function
excellences, excellences of thought and
excellences of character. His phrase for Because Aristotle thinks that virtue is a
excellences of character – êthikai aretai – we unified, unconflicted state where emotional
usually translate as “moral virtue(s)” or responses and rational assessments speak
“moral excellence(s).” The Greek êthikos with the same voice, he, like Plato, thinks
(ethical) is the adjective cognate with êthos that the education of our emotional
(character). responses is crucial for the development of
virtuous character. If our emotional
responses are educated properly, we will
Virtue and Happiness
learn to take pleasure or pain in the right
Living well (eu zen) or happiness things. Like Plato, Aristotle thinks that we
(eudaimonia) can take a person’s pleasures and pains to be
a sign of his/her state of character.
So the Stoics identify happiness with “living
coherently” (homologoumenôs zên), and
Aristotle says that happiness is “perfect” or
“complete” (teleios) and something
The Needs for Relationships and stage" morality and encourage their
Community development in that direction. The last
comment refers to Kohlberg's moral
Aristotle thinks that, in addition to
discussion approach. He saw this as one of
friendships, wider social relations are
the ways in which moral development can
required for the full development of our
be promoted through formal education.
rational powers. He says in Nicomachean
Ethics I.7 that we are by nature political
beings, whose capacities are fully realized in
Module 3: The Act
a specific kind of political community (a
polis or city-state). Moral Emotions: Emotions – that is to say
feelings and intuitions – play a major role in
Aristotle’s ideal political community is led
most of the ethical decisions people make.
by citizens who recognize the value of living
fully active lives and whose aim is to make Inner-directed negative emotions like guilt,
the best life possible for their fellow embarrassment, and shame often motivate
citizens, thereby promoting the common people to act ethically.
good (Politics 1278b19–26, cf. 1280b8–12)
Outer-directed negative emotions, on the
other hand, aim to discipline or punish. For
example, people often direct anger, disgust,
Stages of Moral Development (Lawrence
or contempt at those who have acted
Kohlberg)
unethically. This discourages others from
Pre-Conventional: socially acceptable behaving the same way.
norms
Positive emotions like gratitude and
1: Obedience and Punishment admiration, which people may feel when
they see another acting with compassion or
2: Individualism, Instrumentalism, and
kindness, can prompt people to help others.
Exchange
Impartiality:
Conventional: found in society
Gert’s analysis captures the important fact
3: Good Boy/Girk
that one cannot simply ask of a given agent
4: Law and Order whether or not she is impartial. Rather, we
must also specify with regard to whom she
Post-Conventional: is impartial, and in what respect. Gert’s
5: Social Contract – social mutuality and analysis, then, permits and indeed requires
genuine interest that we make fairly fine-grained distinctions
between various sorts of impartiality. This is
6: Principled Conscience – individual necessary, since one and the same agent
conscience might manifest various sorts of partiality and
Thus, according to Kohlberg, it was impartiality towards various groups of
important to present them with moral persons.
dilemmas for discussion which would help
them to see the reasonableness of a "higher
Similarly, the idea that impartiality requires 7. Make a Decision- the decision made is
that we give equal and/or adequate one that possesses the least number of
consideration to the interests of all negative consequence.
concerned parties goes well beyond the
A Format for Ethical Decision Making in
requirements of the merely formal notion.
Seven Steps
1. State problem (e.g. "Do I have a conflict
7-Step Moral Reasoning Model (Scott B. of interest? or even "This makes me
Rae, Ph.D.) ▪ a model for making ethical uncomfortable").
decisions with the use of reason and
2. Check facts (some problems disappear
impartiality on moral matters.
upon closer examination of the situation;
1. Gather the Facts- determining what do others change radically).
you already know or the facts at hand and
3. Identify relevant factors
what you are going to do.
▪ Who is affected by the decision? An
2. Determine the Ethical Issues- these are
individual, several individuals? An
the ethical or moral issues needed to be
organization?
tackled or faced in a certain situation that
may cause harm to an individual. ▪ What are the consequences for the affected
parties?
3. Identify the Principles that have a Bearing
on the Case- it could refer to Biblical ▪ Do any laws, professional codes exist that
Principles, Constitutional Principles, should be considered?
Personal Principles or principles drawn from
natural law, which guides a person in ▪ Are there any practical considerations
making decisions. usually, biblical principles (under $200, in fifteen minutes, procedural
weighs more heavily than the others. constraints, etc.)

4. List the Alternatives- coming up with 4. Develop list of at least five options (be
various alternative courses of action as part imaginative, try to avoid "dilemma" -not
of creative thinking included in resolving a "yes" or "no" but who to go to, what to say).
moral dilemma. 5. Test options, using such tests as the
5. Compare the Alternatives with the following:
Principles- involves eliminating alternatives ▪ Harm test - does this option do less harm
contradicting to the principles we believe in. than any alternative?
6. Weigh the Consequences- in case the ▪ Publicity test - would I want my choice of
principle do not produce a clear decision, this option published in the newspaper?
then consider possible consequences
(positive and negative) in your chosen ▪ Defensibility test - could I defend my
alternatives. choice of this option before a Congressional
committee, a committee of my peers, or my
parents
▪ Reversibility test - would I still think the
choice of this option good if I were one of
those adversely affected by it?
▪ Virtue test - what would I become if I
chose this option often?
▪ Professional test - what might my
profession's ethics committee say about this
option?
▪ Business test - what do my colleagues day
when I describe my problem and suggest
this option as my solution?
▪ Organization test - what does the
organization's ethics officer or legal counsel
say about this option?
6. Make a tentative choice based on steps 1-
5
7. Review steps 1-6: ▪ What could make it
less likely you would have to make such a
decision again?
▪ What precautions can you take as an
individual (announce policy on the question,
change job, etc.)?
▪ What can you do to have more support
next time (e.g., seek future allies on this
issue)?
▪ What can you do to change the
organization (e.g., suggest policy change at
next departmental meeting)?
Moral Courage:
The ability to exhibit fortitude and a
constant determination to exert professional
skepticism.