TOPIC IV: The Minimum Requirement (Elements) of Morality:

Reason and Impartiality

Introduction

Under certain situations, most people would almost always try to get most if not all the
benefits that they could possibly derive. When decisions are to be undertaken, they grab all
advantages for themselves and leave nothing to other people concerned because they claim it is
their right. Oftentimes decisions are one-sided by obstinately believing that we have all the rights
and others do not have. This is a biased or subjective way of looking for solutions to conflicts
or problems. People decide which is more favorable for them taking all the possible advantages
and never consider the interest of others who might be affected by the solutions arrived at.

The topic on the minimum requirement or conception of morality aims at helping people
to be objective in their decisions. This perspective requires the consideration of the interests of
the people who would be affected by any decision. Very often, an acceptable decision to all
parties that may be involved is difficult to reach because decisions only favor one party and not
the others. For instance, when siblings will have to divide their inheritance, the eldest desires
always to get the larger or the best of it. When dividing a property like land inheritance, the
eldest among the siblings would always want to apportion what is to his or her advantage and
never to consider the interests of the younger siblings. Alternatives in such a case are never fair
and do not represent a good solution. Fairness is difficult to achieve. Let us give it a try by
considering reason and impartiality.

Learning Outcomes

1. Express objectivity in decision making;

2. Analyze moral situations; and
3. Resolve conflicts or problems on the basis of moral obligation.

Activating Prior Learning

Give examples of conflict where people are not able to arrive at an equitable solution to a
problem or so called difficult situation that people do not know how to resolve it.

Presentation of Contents

Definitions do not make one instantly moral but it is by trying to be. To help us continue
in our journey to appropriate what is morally right and avoid what can possibly lead us to be just
the opposite; let us consider the “minimum conception of morality” by James Rachels (2003). He
says: “Morality is, at the very least, the effort to guide one’s conduct by reason – that is, to do
what there are the best reasons for doing – while giving equal weight to the interests of each
individual who will be affected by what one does.”

Rachels(2003) mentions two important things; reason and impartiality. When deciding,
he suggests that one should have a good reason or reasons for deciding so. A good reason is not
one that is one-sided or looks only at the interest of the one making the decision. “When I decide
and I look only at the advantages I get from my decision; it does not make me a better moral
agent.” He describes what it takes to be a better moral agent. He describes an enlightened moral
agent as a conscientious moral agent.

A conscientious moral agent according to him is the one who is concerned impartially.
That means someone who considers the interests of everyone affected by what one does or
decides. The conscientious moral agent takes every effort to carefully analyze every fact and
examines their implications and consequences if they will be acted upon; accepts principles of
conducts only after having scrutinized them to be sure that they are acceptable not only for the
one deciding but including everyone who will be affected by the decision later on. Further,
Rachels insists that a conscientious moral agent is the one who is willing “to listen to reason”
which means that the moral agent is willing to make changes or revise earlier conviction. Finally,
the conscientious moral agent is willing to act on the bases of such deliberations.

Summary

Learning to be impartial is too often difficult and painful because it implies the
willingness to give up some of our interests in favor of others’ interests. People cannot simply
give up certain advantages because they have been so used to it that losing them is unacceptable
and would require sometimes a radical change in their life.

For example, giving up a business enterprise which one has been managing for a long
time but legally does not belong to him or to her would not be easy. It would demand radical
shift in one’s life – habits, lifestyle, economic status, associations, security and even one’s
identity.

To be impartial means “free from biases”. It is the readiness to re-examine facts and data
and willingness to re-consider past decisions and adopt new ones. To be able to achieve this, it
would necessitate appealing to reason. Only a rational person would be willing to change,
challenge traditions, consider one’s real duties and obligations and to be selfless in one’s
perspective and in making decisions. Like Rachels’s reflection, it would take a conscientious
moral agent who is willing to “listen to reason” and act accordingly.
 Assessment
Answer the following questions shortly by starting with Yes, because …. and No,
because….

1. Is reason indispensable for an informed for moral decision?

__________________________________________________________________

2. Impartiality necessary to resolve conflicts?

__________________________________________________________________

3. And you apply impartiality when you are involved in a case?

________________________________________________________________ if
__________________________________________________________________

4. Mr. X and Mrs. Y are both illegal drug users. They both snatched from
victims in the public crowded places, transport and other possible avenues.
Are they morally accountable or not?
__________________________________________________________________

Reflection
Am I overwhelmed by my emotion too often and make decisions that are
unreasonable? Did I not put aside my education and make relentless pursuit even of the
innocent just to satisfy my desire to avenge or take advantage? Are not my decisions too
often inconsiderate and prejudicial or so bias of others? How can I be more
reasonable and fair in my own actions and of judging others’ actions.