MODULE 6: MAKING INFORMED DECISIONS

TOPICS:

 Moral Deliberation
 Moral Problems

1
INTRODUCTION

A. Moral Deliberation

MORAL DELIBERATION

There is a big difference between a young child’s reasoning on the right thing to do
and the manner a morally mature individual arrives at an ethical decision. This necessary
growth, which is a maturation in moral reasoning, has been the focus of the study of many
theorists. One of them is the American moral psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg (1927-1987)
who theorized that moral development happens in six stages, which he divided into three
levels.

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/wsu-sandbox/chapter/lifespan-theories/

2
 The morally mature individual, for Kohlberg, must outgrow both (1) the pre-conventional
level, whose pleasure-and-pain logic locks one into self-centered kind of thinking, an egoism, as
well as (2) the conventional level, which at first glance looks like the sensible approach to
morality.
The second level might, de facto, be the way that many (if not most) adults think about
morality, that it is simply a question of following the right rules. The great insight of Kohlberg,
however, is that a truly morally mature individual must outgrow even the simple following of
supposedly right rules. This is where the third level comes in.
The third and the highest level of moral development for Kohlberg is what he calls post-
conventional since the morally responsible agent recognizes that what is good or right is not
reducible to following the rules of one’s group. Instead, it is a question of understanding
personally what one ought to do and deciding, using one’s free will, to act accordingly. This
level, which is also divided into two stages (the fifth and the sixth), represents the individual’s
realization that the ethical principles she has rationally arrived at take precedence over even
realization that the rules or conventions that her society dictates. Moral maturity therefore is
seen in an agent who acts is in accordance with one’s community’s law or not. An agent has
attained full moral development if she acts according her well-thought-out rational principles.
In the earlier stage of this level of moral development in the fifth stage, the moral agent
sees the value of the social contract, namely, agreements that rational agents have arrived at
whether explicitly or implicitly in order to serve what can be considered the common good are
what one ought to honor and follow. This notion of common good is post-conventional in the
sense that the moral agent binds herself to what this theoretical community of rational agents
has identified as morally desirable, whether the agent herself will benefit from doing so or not.
Additionally, this notion of the common good is not reducible to pre-existing communal rules,
traditions, or laws since even these must be weighed using rational discourse. Thus, what is
good or right is what honors the social contract; what contradicts it is bad.
The sixth and highest stage of moral development that exists even beyond the fifth
stage of the social contract is choosing to perform actions based on universal ethical principles
that one has determined by herself. One realizes that all the conventions (laws, rules, and
regulations) of society are only correct if they are based on these universal ethical principles;
they must be followed only if they reflect universal ethical principles. This is, for Kohlberg, the full
maturity of post-conventional thinking since this stage recognizes that in the end, the question
of what one ought to do goes back to the individual moral agent and her own rationality.
Kohlberg’s insight is of reward and punishment, or pain and pleasure. Simply following rules
even if, theoretically, they are the correct ones, does not necessarily qualify as morally mature
behavior. One must make free use of her own power of reasoning in cases of moral choice and
not remain a creature of blind obedience to either pain or pleasure or to the demands of the
group, if one aspires to moral maturity. The significant that, ultimately, one must think for herself
what she ought to do. This stand recognizes the supposed fact that there might be instances
when the agent must choose to go against what the community of rational thinkers deems as
good if she really thinks she must, assuming that she has committed her full rationality in arriving
at the decision.
One does not have to agree completely with Kohlberg’s theory of moral development
to see its overall value. This theory helps, at the very least, point out the differences in moral
reasoning: the more mature kind is seen in people who are not anymore dictated by the logic
ce of studying the different ethical theories and frameworks becomes clear only to the
individual who has achieved, or is in the process of achieving, moral maturity. For someone
who still in Kohlberg’s pre-conventional or conventional stages, moral valuation remains a
matter of seeking reward or avoiding punishment, or at best, a question of following the
dictates of other people. COURSE CONTENT MAIN REFERENCE/S
Bulaong, O.G., Calano, M.J.T., Lagliva, A., Mariano,
M.N.E., & Principe, J.D.Z. (2018). Ethics:
Foundations for moral valuation. Quezon City: Rex
3 Bookstore.
 MORAL PROBLEMS

What must a morally mature individual do when she is confronted with a moral problem?

In order to answer this question, we must first understand that there are different types of moral
problems, each one requiring a particular set of rational deliberations. We may attempt to construct
an outline of what we ought to do when confronted with the potential ethical issue.
The first step that we ought to take if there is a potential ethical issue is to determine our level of
involvement in the case at hand. Do we need to make a moral decision in a situation that needs
action on our part? Or are we trying to determine the right thing to do in a particular case, but one
that does not necessarily involve ourselves. We may just
be reading about a case that involves other people but we are not part of the case. In any Ethics
class, students are made to imagine what they would do in a particular situation. Their moral
imagination is being exercised in the hope of cultivating moral reasoning and giving direction to the
needed cultivation of their feelings through habits. But they must be able to distinguish between
making a judgment on a particular ethical situation and coming up with a morally responsible decision
for a situation that they are actually a part of. Being a moral agent specifically refers to the latter
situation. We must therefore identify which activity we are engaged in, whether we are making a
judgment on a case that we are not involved in or if we truly need to make a decision in a situation
that demands that we act.
After ascertaining our involvement in the potential moral situation, we then need to make sure
of the facts. The first fact to establish is whether we are faced with a moral situation or not. Are we truly
confronted with a genuinely moral situation, or one that merely involves a judgment in the level of
aesthetics or etiquette and therefore is just and amoral or non-ethical question? But if the situation we
are involved in truly has moral weight, if it strikes one to the core because it involves what it truly means
to be human, then we must now establish all the facts that might have a bearing on our decision. We
must set aside all details that have no connection to the situation. We must also identify whether an
item in consideration is truly factual that might have a bearing on our decision. We must set aside all
details that have no connection to the situation. We must also identify whether an item in
consideration is truly factual or merely hearsay, anecdotal, or an unfounded assumption and thus
unsupportable. This is where such things as “fake news” and “alternative facts” have to be weeded
out. Letting such details seep into our ethical deliberation may unfairly determine or shape our ethical
decision-making process, leading us into potentially baseless choices or conclusions. The responsible
moral individual must make sure that she possesses all the facts she needs for that particular situation,
but also only the facts that she needs-no more, no less.
The third step is to identify all the people who may potentially be affected by the implications
of a moral situation or by our concrete choice of action. These people are called the stakeholders in
the particular case. Identifying these stakeholders forces us to give consideration to people aside from
ourselves. The psychological tendency of most of us when confronted with an ethical choice is to
simply think of ourselves, of what we need, or of what we want. This is also where we can be trapped in
an immature assumption that the only thing important is what we “feel” at that moment, which usually
is reducible to Kohlberg’s notion of pre-conventional thinking. When we identify all the stakeholders,
we are obliged to recognize all the other people potentially concerned with the ethical problem at
hand, and thus must think of reasons aside from our own self- serving ones, to come up with
conclusions that are impartial (in the sense that they take consideration of everyone’s welfare), though
still thoroughly involved.
Aside from identifying the stakeholders, we must also determine how they may be
affected by whichever choice the agent makes in the given ethical situation, as well as to what
degree. Not all stakeholders have an equal stake in a given moral case; some may be more favorably
or more adversely affected by a particular conclusion or choice compared to others. A person’s
awareness of these probabilities is necessary to gain a more comprehensive assessment of the matter
at hand in order to arrive at hopefully stronger reasons for making a definite ethical conclusion or
choice. After establishing the facts and identifying the stakeholders and their concerns in the matter,
we must now identify the ethical issue at hand. There are several types of ethical problems or issues:
The first one is a situation in which we need to clarify whether certain action is morally right or morally
wrong. This is where the different ethical theories or frameworks can serve. Why is murder said to be an
unethical or immoral act? How will utilitarianism explain the moral significance of this action? How
4 COURSE CONTENT MAIN REFERENCE/S
Rachels, James. The Elements of Moral Philosophy
(8th Edition).New York: Random House, 1986.
 The second type involves determining whether a particular action in question can be
identified with a generally accepted ethical or unethical action. An example would be the issue of
the ethical value of the death penalty. Can we say that death penalty is tantamount to murder?
What would the different ethical theories or frameworks say regarding this issue? There is hardly an
ethical problem if the agent’s question is clearly about performing a widely- considered unethical or
immoral action, such as “Ought I to murder my neighbor?” Murder in almost all, if not all, societies is
unquestionably considered one of the worse acts a human being can perform. The situation in
question only assumes an ethical identity if, in this case, there is a query as to whether a particular
act of killing a human being is tantamount to murder or not. The issue of legalizing the death
penalty, for example, is precisely an ethical issue or question, since for some people, the act in
which a state executes someone guilty of a heinous crime should not be considered an act of
murder, which is always wrong. The ethical debate surrounding the imposition of the death penalty is
generally not about whether some acts of murder are justifiable or not, but the rather whether
legally-sanctioned executions ought to be considered as murder or not.
The third type points to the presence of an ethical dilemma. Dilemmas are ethical situations
in which there are competing values that seem to have an equal worth. The problem can be
concerned either with a choice between two competing moral goods or between two evils. The
responsible moral individual therefore must be able to recognize what exactly the ethical issue at
B.hand
Moral Problems
is and formulate ans state it clearly as a moral problem. She has to identify the fundamental
C. The Value
values of Studying
in conflict in such aEthical
situationTheories
in order or
toFrameworks
assess later if a workable solution to the ethical
problem can be negotiated
D. Self, Society and Environment that will somehow not end up surrendering one value for the sake of
another. The individuals must try to find the best balance possible that may honor the competing
values. She must then identify the possible choices in a given ethical situation will bring to the
stakeholders concerned in order to determine which choice possibly is the best, given the situation.
The popular “Robin Hood” scenario is an example of such. Usually put in the question, “Is it right to
steal from the rich in order to feed the poor?” What one is confronted here is a situation in which two
competing values are in conflict with another.
The final step, of course, is for the individual to make her ethical conclusion or decision,
whether in judging what ought to be done in a given case or in coming up with a concrete action
she must actually perform. Real ethical decisions are often very difficult enough to make and for so
many different reasons. Not all the facts in a given case may be available to the agent for her
consideration. Some facts may eventually turn out to be misleading, or not true at all, and so the
agent’s vigilance and meticulousness in establishing the facts will always be tested in any given
ethical situation. Additionally, it is extremely demanding to account for all the stakeholders
concerned as well as the identity and extent of their interests in the particular case. An agent may
overlook certain individual or undervalue their interests. Many people tend to underestimate the
value of the human rights of criminals, assuming immediately that criminals have surrendered all their
rights or account of the crime they committed against society especially in cases of heinous offenses
such as serial murder or terrorism.
Then, there is the difficult of identifying all the values at play in a given ethical issue. The
moral agent must be able to learn how to avoid the seduction of surrendering to blind simplification.
It so much easier to turn a blind eye to other values that one does not want to consider in a situation
for whatever reason. Often, in the name of some value that is valid enough, such as “peace and
security”, an agent may be tempted to minimize other values, such as human rights or the supposed
inviolable dignity of the individual human person. The responsible moral individual, however, must
forge on realizing full well that cultivating one’s capacity for mature moral choice is a continuing
journey in her life. Aristotle recognizes the importance of continuous habituation in the goal of
shaping one’s character so that she becomes more used to choosing the right thing. Not that doing
so will ever become an automatic process, the way a computer performs mathematical
calculations mechanically.
A moral individual is always a human being whose intellect remains finite and whose
passions remain dynamic, and who is always placed in situations that are unique. There are no
autonomic moral decisions; therefore, such a phrase is patently paradoxical. One must continue to
manage her reason and passions to respond in the best way possible to the kaleidoscope of moral
situations that she finds herself in.

COURSE CONTENT MAIN REFERENCES/S

Rachels, James. The Elements of Moral Philosophy
(8th Edition).New York: Random House, 1986. 5
References:

Bulaong, O.G., Calano, M.J.T., Lagliva, A., Mariano, M.N.E., & Principe, J.D.Z. (2018). Ethics: Foundations
for moral valuation. Quezon City: Rex Bookstore.

Rachels, James. The Elements of Moral Philosophy (8th Edition).New York: Random House, 1986.

Please answer the activity on the next page.

6
Complete Name: ________________________ Date: _______________
Course and Year: __________________

EVALUATE:
Instructions: Identify which stage of Kohlberg’s Moral Development Theory does each statement belongs
to. Write the letter of your answer on the space provided before the number. 2 points each.

A. Stage 1 (Obedience and Punishment)

B. Stage 2 (Individual Interest)
C. Stage 3 (Social Approval)
D. Stage 4 (Authority)
E. Stage 5 (Social Contract and Individual Rights)
F. Stage 6 (Universal Ethics)

_________ 1. “I will not cheat on my husband because I believe that adultery is a sin. I will stay faithful no
matter what.”
_________2. “I will do my best in school so that my parents will be so proud of me.”
_________3. “I will look after my siblings so that my parents will not scold me. Instead they will buy me
chocolates.”
_________4. “I will not cross the pedestrian lane if it is a red light. I have to wait for the green light.”
_________5. “I have to win the spelling bee so that I can the scholarship for college.”
_________6. “I ran a red light because there was an emergency at home.”