Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 17

REASON AS REQUIREMENT IN ETHICS

Reason is a suitable way of knowing for ethical decisions when one does not wish to

question their perception of an issue. It proves useful when consequences are

considered while understanding an issue. Reason lacks the attachment that emotion

carries, it has the ability to remain detached from a situation

Moral judgments must be backed by good reasons. Feelings can overwhelm

reason . Assess arguments – consider facts and principles –avoid prejudices.

Recognize that arguments can go wrong in so many ways. Do not let reason be

overwhelmed by feeling.

MORAL REASONING

The morally right thing to do is always the thing best supported by the arguments

 Our decisions must be guided as much as possible by reason.

 Our feelings may be irrational and may be nothing but products of prejudice,

selfishness, or cultural conditioning.

 We cannot rely on our feelings, no matter how powerful they might be.

When it comes to ethical principles and justification, reason is the most useful way of

knowing, and the most important way of deciding how to act morally. This is because

reason is based on logic (at least more so than the other ways of knowing), thus it is

less likely to be influenced and changed due to the environment, your own experiences,

etc. The other ways of knowing are all much more emotionally based and feel like they

are more liable to change. Reason is useful as moral indicator because it should
always stay the same and be the most unbiased way of knowing, which allows

ethical principles to be justified objectively. For example, memories can be erased,

made, changed ,etc. which would make it a less valid method in the justification of

ethical principles. However, reason is centered around facts and direct links, which can

be traced back and forth – reason can thus be the same for everyone, making it a

more consistent method of knowing how to act morally.

IMPARTIALITY AS REQUIREMENT IN ETHICS


*fair, just, equitable, impartial, unbiased, dispassionate, objective mean free from

favor toward either or any side.

Morality requires the impartial consideration of each individual’s interests. Each

individual’s interests are equal importance and the welfare of others is as

important as our own. This is a proscription of arbitraries.

SITUATIONS INVOLVING IMPARTIALITY

1. Each individual’s interests are equally important, and no one should get special

treatment.

- Impartiality in its true sense requires that subjective distinctions be set aside.

To illustrate the difference between the two notions: a National Society that

refuses to provide its services to a specific group of people, because of their

ethnic origin, fails to observe the rule of non-discrimination; whereas a

National Society staff member who, in the exercise of his functions, favours a

friend by giving him better treatment than that given to others, contravenes
the principle of impartiality. Therefore, staff and volunteers should be trained

to ensure that correct behaviour becomes almost a reflex.

2. If there is no good reason for treating differently ,then discrimination is

unacceptable arbitrary.

- If you're in a contest you'd better hope the judges are impartial, that is, that

they aren't biased toward one competitor over another. When someone's

partial to something they take its part. Impartial means no part has yet been

taken.

Example of Impartial Decisions

- Impartiality is the idea that the same ethical standards are applied to

everyone.

- Self interest needs to be balanced with needs of others.

- Do not value one person or group more than any other .

- Each person is an individual and should receive equal respect and

consideration.

- Organizations and institutions – consider how the people associated with these

are affected.

FEELINGS AND REASONS: Upsurge of feelings is natural and what we do with them

is what makes us ethical or unethical.

FEELINGS DEFINED
These are mental associations and reactions to emotions which originate in the

neocortical regions of the brain, and are subjective being influenced by personal

experience, beliefs and memories. These are next thing that happens after having an

emotion, involve cognitive input, usually subconscious and cannot be measured

precisely.

EMOTION vs. FEELING

Feelings are sparked by emotions and colored by personal experiences, beliefs,

memories, and thoughts linked to that particular emotion. Strictly speaking, a feeling is

the side product of your brain perceiving an emotion and assigning a certain meaning to

it. - For example, you remember a happy memory by looking at the family picture, you

may remember you we’re in joy at that moment but at present you may feel sad.

Essentially, emotions are physical and instinctive. While they are complex and involve a

variety of physical and cognitive responses (many of which are not well understood),

their general purpose is to produce a specific response to a stimulus. Emotions can be

powerful experiences, but they usually do not last long. They sometimes make us do

things we later regret. - Today, we are angry at a colleague and want to yell at her.

Tomorrow, we wish we had acted more rationally, no matter how compelling our desire

was at the time. By transforming goals and desires in the heat of the moment, emotions

can lead us to make choices that hurt our long-term interests. Doing something that you

do not want to do is one of the hallmarks of irrationality - hence, emotions make us

irrational.

REASON DEFINED
Reason – a form of personal justification which changes from person to person based

on their own ethical and moral code, as well as prior experience. It stands for the

faculties of rational reflection, sensations and experience, memory and inference, and

any judgments that may be exercised without relying on a religious faith that is

unsupported by reason.

FEELING AND REASON INTERTWINED

 Feelings are not limited to good and bad, happy and sad moods. They also influence

judgments, and hence decisions, with feelings as mild as contentment, safety, and

perceived ease or difficulty of tasks to be faced. In short, they mess with our thinking

minds in all sorts of ways.

 “Sensitivity requires rationality to complete it, and vice versa. There is no siding onto

which emotions can be shunted so as not to impinge on thought.” -Mary Midgley

 Plato saw reason and emotion as two horses pulling a chariot, with the charioteer

struggling to make them work as a team.

 Emotion is not the opposite of reason. It is a different form of it. Emotion is always

prompting us to serve and advance our needs and interests.

WHEN REASON OVERRULED FEELING

We rely on our reason to guard against feelings that may reflect a bias, or a sense of

inadequacy, or a desire simply to win an argument, and also to refine and explain a felt

conviction that passes the test of critical reflection and discussion. We rely on feelings

to move us to act morally, and to ensure that our reasoning is not only logical but also

humane.
WHEN EMOTION OVERRULED REASON

Emotion creates a strong opinion that is hard for reason to overcome when emotion

takes over it is hard to think of the consequences of one’s actions. It can also be

constructive when working by itself in the decision making process.

EMOTION ALONE

When emotion is left as the only way of knowing used to make ethical decisions, these

decisions are often made with little to no regard to the consequences of our actions.

However, when faced with a situation where one has prior experience, the emotions

that are used to make a decision have been tested before, thus providing a solid ground

for ethical decision-making. Paul Ekman devised six basic emotions: anger, disgust,

fear, happiness, sadness and surprise.

REASON ALONE

Reason, when removed from emotion, allows a person to make conscious decisions

based on fact, with no reference to personal involvement. The use of reason as a way

of knowing, allows for the knower to see the consequences of their actions throughout

the decision-making process. There are limitations to decisions made based on reason

alone, perception of situations is not questioned as it may be with an emotional decision

“Remove emotion and we are not left rational, but adrift without meaning.”

(Neuroscientist Antonio Damasio studied people injured in specific brain localities

responsible for emotion.)

Short Debate: In decision making, what must overrule, emotion or reasoning?


Ethical Dilemma: A sample case related to feeling vs. reasoning

Nursing often deals with ethical dilemmas in the clinical arena. A case study

demonstrates an ethical dilemma faced by healthcare providers who care for and treat

Jehovah's Witnesses who are placed in a critical situation due to medical life-

threatening situations. A 20-year-old, pregnant, Black Hispanic female presented to the

Emergency Department (ED) in critical condition following a single-vehicle car accident.

She exhibited signs and symptoms of internal bleeding and was advised to have a

blood transfusion and emergency surgery in an attempt to save her and the fetus. She

refused to accept blood or blood products and rejected the surgery as well. Her refusal

was based on a fear of blood transfusion due to her belief in Bible scripture. The ethical

dilemma presented is whether to respect the patient's autonomy and compromise

standards of care or ignore the patient's wishes in an attempt to save her life. This

paper presents the clinical case, identifies the ethical dilemma, and discusses virtue

ethical theory and principles that apply to this situation.

What is Ethical requirement or ethical standard?

* Ethical standards are a set of principles established by the founders of the

organization to communicate its underlying moral values. This code provides a

framework that can be used as a reference for decision making processes.

* These standards are an important part of an organization’s culture. They establish the

parameters of behaviour that owners and top executives expect from employees and

also from suppliers, at least to the extent of their relationship with the organization. A

corporate governance system will put a lot of effort into communicating and enforcing
these principles. This is mostly done through behaviour modelling, which means that top

executives should set the example of how lower-level employees should act.

* These principles should serve also as guidelines for decision-making processes to

help employees align their personal criteria with the company’s perspectives as different

ethical issues arise within normal business activities. This moral “compass” is crucial to

maintain unethical behaviours down to a minimum, mostly in managerial positions.

What is Ethical Reasoning?

Most human behavior has consequences for the welfare of others, even for society as a

whole. Individuals are able to act in such as way as to enhance or decrease the quality

of the lives of others, and generally know the difference between helping and harming.

Ethical reasoning holds two roles in life:

 Highlighting acts that enhance the well-being of other people.

 Highlighting acts that harm the well-being of other people.

When an act enhances the well-being of others, it is worthy of praise from others, when

an act harms or decreases the well-being of others, it is worthy of criticism. For many

people, the desire to receive these responses from others guides the development of

their personal set of ethical standards.


Ethical Reasoning and Individual Rights

In civilized societies, people have individual rights, but it is vital that these rights

coincide with the collective rights of society as a whole. A person being denied personal

rights due to the greater good of society may feel the decision conflicts with his own

ethical reasoning. While some people believe that a person’s individual rights should be

preserved regardless of the benefit or harm to society, others deem it more important

that the common good and justice be considered in a civilized society. These opposing

beliefs are a result of individual ethical reasoning.

Ethical Reasoning and the Law

The government creates and enforces laws in order to protect the citizens and the unity

of society. These laws carry punishments those who violate them in the form of fines,

community service, probation, and imprisonment.

Each individual develops his own core values and ethical reasoning according to his

view of integrity and honesty, and ability to look past the self-justification and self-

deception common to all people. Acts that have been deemed illegal may not coincide

with an individual’s personal ethical beliefs, and vice versa. Laws are often created out

of widespread social convention, whether they are seen to be fair and ethical by all or

not. Some people strongly believe that certain acts are unethical, and should therefore

be made illegal. Others find certain laws to be unethical according to their own

reasoning, and feel they are a hindrance to their personal human rights.
For example, Bob believes that the death penalty is unethical and that is violates human

rights. In the jurisdiction in which he resides, however, the death penalty is a

punishment occasionally handed down by the judicial system. While Bob does not

believe that the death penalty is ethical, the law was made on the belief that it is

necessary for the greater good of society.

Ethical Decisions in the Legal System

On occasion, those who work in law enforcement and the legal system find that the

ethical decisions they are required to make on a subject conflicts with the law. This may

occur, for example, when a judge finds that the resolution of a case, as dictated by law,

conflicts with his personal ethical reasoning. In such a case, the judge must follow the

laws of the jurisdiction, even if it seems to create a moral dilemma for him personally.

Institutional Ethics

In some instances, individual entities can punish or take corrective actions against a

person who has breached the company’s ethical code. For example, an accounting firm

hires new employees, who are required to read and sign the employee handbook. This

handbook states that employees must not let their personal bias interfere in any

business transactions.

Allowing personal bias or opinion to dictate how a business transaction is done is not

necessarily against any law set forth by the government, but it may result in the

employee’s termination as it violates the company’s policy and institutional ethics. In

serious cases, the employer may be able to recover damages through a civil lawsuit for

such a violation.
The Ethical requirements of impartiality

Impartiality Defined

Impartiality (also called evenhandedness or fair-mindedness) is a principle

of justice holding that decisions should 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.

Impartial Decisions

Impartiality is the idea that the same ethical standards are applied to everyone. Ethics

do not value one person or group of people more than any other does. Impartiality

requires that in making ethical decisions we balance our self-interest with the interest of

others

The requirement of impartiality

 Each individual’s interest are equally important, and no one should get special

treatment

 If there is no good reason for treating people differently, then discrimination is

unacceptably arbitrary

How to manage Impartiality


LEAVE YOUR BIASES AT THE DOOR

Conducting investigations of employee behaviour or disputes between two people can

be a complicated task. When handled properly and professionally, you can avoid issues

such as further friction, low morale or costly litigation. If you decide to tackle these

matters in house, it’s important that you leave your own biases out of it. Always remain

neutral to the situation (and the people involved) and give everyone a fair chance to

vocalise their thoughts / feelings no matter their race, religion, cultural background,

upbringing, neighbourhood / hometown, political stance, age or gender.

DON’T TAKE SIDES

Never let your own suspicions sway you into taking sides. It’s natural to want to

sympathise with a particular party, especially if someone claims to be victimised or

appears hurt / upset. But always remember that taking sides is not being impartial. And

it’s important to remind yourself that all situations are different, and all have the power to

surprise. Sometimes, there is a victim and a perpetrator. Other times, the victim turns

out to be the perpetrator. And most times, both parties are victims and perpetrators to

one another. So have an open mind and remain neutral because you never know what

the outcome may be.

ENCOURAGE OPEN DIALOGUE


The easiest way to resolve a problem in the workplace is to allow people the freedom to

express themselves. Whilst it’s essential to schedule in private meetings, it’s just as

important to encourage group discussion. For instance open dialogue between two

opposing parties can often be the quickest way to come to a solution. Appoint a

mediator (HR manager or line manager) to lead the agenda, to keep all discussions on

track, and to ensure that debates never turn into full blown arguments.

BE HONEST WITH YOURSELF

If you are unable to remain neutral about a particular workplace issue, it’s imperative

that you take the right action and remove yourself from the situation. Don’t let your

biases or personal relationships cloud your judgement and try to have better awareness

of your own emotions. Emotions can affect your decision making and control the way

you behave, so having a better understanding of your own feelings is important. As

soon as you feel that you are no longer able to manage your neutrality and impartiality,

appoint someone else at your level who can, or take the investigations out of house. It’s

better to be safe than sorry, so even if you have minor concerns, consult someone else

for help.

Impartiality and ethical theory

In Euthypro, Socrates expresses astonishment that a young man would prosecute his

own father for murder. The conventional assumption he seems to be making (perhaps

disingenuously) is that filial relationships impose special constraints that may override

other consideration, even in the gravest matter. For Euthyphro, by contrast, a murder is
a murder. The fact that it was committed by his father has no bearing upon what he is

required to do about it. He must prosecute his father just as he would a stranger.

There are at least three distinct standards that run through these problems. One

concerns the substance of moral norms. We grant the powerful and persistent force of

self interest in our lives, and assume that morality must somehow give us reasons for

constraining such motives. We grant the rules and principles of conduct will often be

useless or counter-productive in purely local or short range terms, and assume that

morality must give us reasons for acting in principle in spite of it. We grant that our

favourites and friends have special claims on our attentions, and assume that morality

must give us reasons for occasionally denying such claims. In order to provide such

reasons, moral theories standardly argue that our selfish, local and purely personal

interest are morally indistinguishable from many others and that reason require us to

treat similar cases similarly. Morality thus requires (at least sometimes) that we not play

favorites, or manipulate rules to our personal advantage, or make ad hoc expectations

for ourselves. In that sense it requires us to be impartial.

©1991 by The University of Chicago. All right reserved. 0014-1704/91/0104-0111$01.00


Conclusion

Reason requires impartiality, but not neutrality. Basil George Mitchell argues that

impartiality means not that one refrains from having a conclusion or one remain neutral

on value issues, but that one is fair in his/her arguments and in assessing the

arguments of his/her opponent. Reason is the most important way of knowing when

acting morally. it does not change based on personal experiences and variations that

occur in human nature. Emotion, perception, imagination, language, faith, intuition, and

memory are all susceptible to changes and differences between different individuals,
but at the core of “cold hard reason,” the outcome of a logical argument should be the

same for everyone, no matter what.

In discussion, no one is required to respect our feelings. We can’t change someone’s

mind because we’re angry or hurt. We may change what they do out of guilt or peer

pressure, but this is the result of manipulation not conviction. If we want to convince

anyone, we must use reason. Reason is the only way for human beings to build

common ground into a common good. On that we must rely.

Reason and impartiality will always be associate when it comes to moral judgement and

decisions.

Sources:

https://pages.stolaf.edu/ein/themes/emotions-and-reason/?

fbclid=IwAR2azpyrD0oU4IVekkKJp1JbdhVqCCtMy0-

9pW47vWDDbPQWTG1r0DpPyuQ

https://prezi.com/tfqmvcyiv0lb/what-roles-do-emotion-and-reason-play-in-ethics/?

fbclid=IwAR3idEORynRms8H7d93mlwMgVvgwdHXO3EZZLgSwC_7QSYTmB1-

Oy9fQL7w
https://doingethics.com/Blog/2008/05/reason-and-feelings.html?

fbclid=IwAR3zacKQcZryPEs6kEcV2rvTD1lgujU9LkpfhwkFRLg_oaDcWwfCqn86_mE

https://www.laughteronlineuniversity.com/feelings-and-emotions/?

fbclid=IwAR3jAcJsF8G6urzk8KJ79AqOqlI10NM3BpFVebYEuHIEqnjmxMwsP_cl-2k

https://agrainofsalt.blog/2018/11/06/reason-and-feeling/?

fbclid=IwAR1BsF0Ve2lif7UJUw_s9Se98yWZY_7zZL0PCK-wNT44V2mpfVNYvfdmXFQ

https://rationaloptimist.wordpress.com/2012/09/13/reason-versus-emotion/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19105511

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2381660?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

https://legaldictionary.net/ethical-reasoning/

Вам также может понравиться