Since the beginning of the course, you were already told that our minimum conception of morality lies on the two important requirements: REASON and IMPARTIALITY. It is argued that a sound moral judgment is always based on the dictates of reason. However, we come to acknowledge that a substantial part of our humanity is contained in our capacity to feel. At the end of the day, we realize that no matter how ideal/rational our plans and decisions, our emotions may cause little to major changes in our decisions. Thus, it is but proper that we also analyze how emotions play in our moral decision making process.
I. David Hume, Emotions and Sentiments as foundation of Morality
Emotions – that is to say feelings and intuitions – play a major role in most of the ethical decisions people make. Most people do not realize how much their emotions direct their moral choices. But experts think it is impossible to make any important moral judgments without emotions.
Inner-directed negative emotions like guilt, embarrassment, and shame often
motivate people to act ethically. Outer-directed negative emotions, on the other hand, aim to discipline or punish. For example, people often direct anger, disgust, or contempt at those who have acted unethically. This discourages others from behaving the same way.
Positive emotions like gratitude and admiration, which people may feel when they see another acting with compassion or kindness, can prompt people to help others. Emotions evoked by suffering, such as sympathy and empathy, often lead people to act ethically toward others. Indeed, empathy is the central moral emotion that most commonly motivates prosocial activity such as altruism, cooperation, and generosity.
So, while we may believe that our moral decisions are influenced most by our philosophy or religious values, in truth our emotions play a significant role in our ethical decision-making.
David Hume, a philosopher coming from the empirical (knowledge is based on
experience) tradition, argued that morality is determined by sentiments. Virtue is whatever mental action or quality gives to a spectator the pleasing sentiment of approbation; and vice the contrary: Virtue = pleasing to others. There is a sense of approval. Vice = unpleasing to others. There is a sense of disapproval/disgust.
Reason for Hume is ought to be the slave of the passions.
HUME’S ARGUMENT:
P1) Reason cannot tell us what we value
P2) Reason can help us pursue what we value P3) What we value is based on our sentiments & passions SP1) We are naturally endowed with empathy – “fellow human feelings” Sp2) We find virtue beautiful and vice hateful P4) Morality is based on what we value C) Morality must be based on our sentiments & passions
For Hume:
Reason alone might override those “common fellow feelings” and permit inhumane acts Role of compassion is directly linked to one’s conscience & to the ability to feel disgust at vice and approbation towards virtue; with reason alone, “men become totally indifferent toward these distinctions.”
The Moral Sentiments
Approval (approbation) is a pleasure, and disapproval (disapprobation) a pain or
uneasiness.
“The moral sentiments are types of pleasure and uneasiness that are associated with the passions of pride and humility, love and hatred: when we feel moral approval for another we tend to love or esteem her, and when we approve a trait of our own we are proud of it.” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Sympathy and Moral Judgment
Sympathy can be evoked by the outward expression of another which conveys
their passions to us, through an association with our own passions, we come to identify their feelings with our own. Sympathy or pakikiramay in Filipino or pannakipagrikna in Ilocano means nakikita at nararamdaman mo yung pinagdadaanan ng isang tao. Marahil ay naranasan mo na dati ang kanyang dinadamdam o di naman kaya pareho kayo ng dinaramdam sa panahon na iyon.
Sympathy can also be evoked through an observation of outward causes of our
own passions and associating them with another via the inference that what causes us to suffer would also cause another to suffer: “…if we contemplate the instruments laid out for another's surgery, even someone unknown to us, they evoke ideas in us of fear and pain.” Three Players: Moral agent: the person who performs an action Receiver: the person affected by that action Spectator: the person observing the action and its consequences and who approves or disapproves of the agent’s actions.
“…if you as the agent give food to a starving person, then the receiver will experience an immediately agreeable feeling from your act. Also, the receiver may see the usefulness of your food donation, insofar as eating food will improve his health. When considering the usefulness of your food donation, then, the receiver will receive another agreeable feeling from your act. Finally, I, as a spectator, observe these agreeable feelings that the receiver experiences. I, then, will sympathetically experience agreeable feelings along with the receiver. These sympathetic feelings of pleasure constitute my moral approval of the original act of charity that you, the agent, perform. By sympathetically experiencing this pleasure, I thereby pronounce your motivating character trait to be a virtue….” (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
The Role of Emotions in the Trolley Problem
The Trolley Problem: A Classic
Philosophical Dilemma Version 1: Philippa Foot in 1967 at Oxford University first proposed the test scenario. ... “A runaway streetcar is hurtling towards five unsuspecting workers. Do you pull a switch to divert the trolley onto another track, where only one man works alone? Or do you do nothing?”
Version 2: Judith Thomson, a philosopher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, coined the term “trolley problem” and created what would become its second most famous variant, the “footbridge” …. “In the “footbridge” scenario (also known as “fat man”), the streetcar is heading towards five workers, but this time you’re on a footbridge over the track. Standing precariously close to the edge of the bridge next to you is a very large man, who, if he happened to topple onto the track below, could stop the trolley before it reaches the five. Do you push him?”
Joshua Greene, (then a graduate student at Princeton) decided to slide people
into an fMRI machine to glimpse what happened in their brains when faced with different trolley-problem scenarios. He ultimately found that the answers people gave correlated with how emotionally engaged they felt with the dilemma. The decision to pull the switch was related to activity in the prefrontal cortex (associated with cool, conscious deliberation), while the decision not to push the fat man involved areas like the amygdala, associated with strong emotional reactivity.” “Morality may be innate to the human brain. This review examines the neurobiological evidence from research involving functional magnetic resonance imaging of normal subjects, developmental sociopathy, acquired sociopathy from brain lesions, and frontotemporal dementia. These studies indicate a “neuromoral” network for responding to moral dilemmas centered in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex and its connections, particularly on the right. The neurobiological evidence indicates the existence of automatic “prosocial” mechanisms for identification with others that are part of the moral brain. Patients with disorders involving this moral network have attenuated emotional reactions to the possibility of harming others and may perform sociopathic acts.”
SOME PROBLEMS WITH SYMPATHY
Inequality of Sympathy Our capacity to associate with the suffering of others is governed and perhaps limited at least in part by our own experiences Just as different people feel different levels of suffering so too would different people feel different levels of sympathy Some people seem to be easier to sympathize with than others – this is driven by how well we can associate ourselves with them If the circumstances are too alien or the people too different, we could be ignorant of their suffering entirely
Failure to account for unsympathetic behaviour:
What of people whose sentiments are not stirred by the suffering or joy of others? What of those people whose feelings of pleasure are given rise by another’s suffering?
Hume argued that “a false relish may be corrected by argument and
reflection” i.e. “some education by way of instruction and/or experience must occur in order to develop the natural sympathies” (Enquiry, 178) Can mean people be corrected by education? How can Hume distinguish between proper and false relish without reference to some concept of objective truth?
SHOULD EMOTIONS BE THE BASIS OF MORALITY? IS IT ENOUGH TO SAY THAT
AN ACTION IS MORAL JUST BECAUSE PEOPLE APPROVE, SENTIMENTALLY SPEAKING?
WHAT IF MAJORITY OF PEOPLE APPROVE CHEATING JUST BECAUSE IT
ENSURES MASS PROMOTION? WILL THAT MAKE CHEATING AN ETHICAL ACT? II. THE REQUIREMENTS OF REASON AND IMPARTIALITY
We maintain that moral judgments must be backed by good reasons without
necessarily discarding the role of our emotions in decision making. Morality requires the impartial consideration of each individual’s interests.
We cannot rely on our feelings, no matter how powerful they might be. Our feelings may be irrational and may be nothing but products of prejudice, selfishness, or cultural conditioning. Our decisions must be guided as much as possible by reason. The morally right thing to do is always the thing best supported by arguments.
How can we tell if an argument is really good?
Get the facts straight. Bring moral principles into play. Are they justified, and are they being correctly applied?
The Requirement of Impartiality
Each individual’s interests 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.
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 affected by one’s decision. (Rachels)
The Conscientious Moral Agent. . .
Is concerned impartially with the interests of everyone affected by what he or she does. Carefully sifts facts and examines their implications. Accepts principles of conduct only after scrutinizing them to make sure they are justified. Is willing to “listen to reason” even when it means revising prior convictions. Is willing to act on the results of this deliberation. FRAMEWORK FOR MORAL REASONING
I. SORTING OUT ETHICAL ISSUE
A. Types Of Issues 1) Issues for Individuals (Micro-level/Personal) The young engineer, her supervisor Others in the work group An individual's conflict of interest Problem keeping a promise to a colleague. 2) Professional Ethical Issues (Meso-level/Organizational) Professional Standards that apply A professional act or task governed by standards, e.g. writing a report, keeping lab notebook 3) Institutional Issues (Meso-level/Organizational) Relate to organizational structure, practices and climate How they bear on whether individuals behave responsibly, eg. barriers between departments of a company, policies about individual dissent. 4) Social/Environmental Policy Issues (Macro-level) Contractualization of Workers Joint Explorations on Philippine Marine Territories
B. Identifying Ethical Issues
1) What is the problem?
Someone /more than one person is bothered. What's troubling him/her. 2) What makes it an ethical problem? Violations of a moral code are at stake. There is a threat of harm that may be unjustifiable. Code provision is violated 3) Who is affected? Important because we have to know whose interests must be taken into account. Helps to get a clearer idea about the ethical problem. Eg. Once we identify persons or constituency who may be injured, we may bet a better grip on the ethical issue. 4) Is the situation legal? Might a violation of law be involved? Eg. Legal requirement for asking consent of next of kin for a certain medical procedure. 5) Are professional standards or codes at issue? Breach of Confidentiality Engineers entrusted with proprietary Law with clients confidences Medicine with patient's records.
6) Is there a violation of an organizational policy or code?
General Electric's stated policy that prohibits price fixing
7) Having surveyed 1-6, what's at stake?
8) Does it now seem that we can describe the ethical problem in various ways? Usually alternate descriptions of the actors, the situation or action in question. Rationalizations exploit that different descriptions of action, situation, agent, allow different formulations of ethical problems. 9) Wrestling with the issue of alternative descriptions, considering thoroughly who are affected parties may show that there is more then one problem, or that different people in the situation have their distinctive ethical problems.
II. AGREED UPON STANDARDS
For assessing a situation, options for action, deciding what in the end to do.
You need and there are standards.
Rules of morality - even wide agreement on justified violations, eg. killing in
self-defense
How to interpret - agreeing on how to interpret rules in situations may produce
disagreements. There are justifiable exceptions with reasons for exception agreed upon. Is this such a situation?
Professional Codes Engineers, physicians, lawyers, architects, chemists, physicists, not managers. There may be a provision on point, students are often relieved to find relevant provisions. Why do these provisions exist? Some previous experience in the professions led to adoption of the provision. III. SEVEN STEP GUIDE TO MORAL DECISION MAKING PROCESS
1. State problem (e.g. "Do I have a conflict of interest? or even "This makes me uncomfortable").
2. Check facts (some problems disappear upon closer examination of the
situation; others change radically).
3. Identify relevant factors
Who is affected by the decision? An individual, several individuals? An organization? What are the consequences for the affected parties? Do any laws, professional codes exist that should be considered? Are there any practical considerations (under $200, in fifteen minutes, procedural constraints, etc.)
4. Develop list of at least five options (be imaginative, try to avoid "dilemma" -not "yes" or "no" but who to go to, what to say). 5. Test options, using such tests as the following: Harm test - does this option do less harm than any alternative? Publicity test - would I want my choice of this option published in the newspaper? Defensibility test - could I defend my 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)?
You may also the Kantian Model for Ethical Issues Management discussed in our introduction. MORAL COURAGE
Moral courage is the commitment to standing up for and acting upon one’s ethical beliefs (Miller, 2005). Morally courageous individuals act upon their ethical values to help others during difficult ethical dilemmas, despite the adversity they may face in doing so. To be morally courageous means standing up for what you believe even when it means that you do so alone (Murray, 2015).
Critical Checkpoints in using Moral Courage for Ethical Decision Making
Step Checkpoint 1 Evaluate the circumstances to establish whether moral courage is needed in the situation 2 Determine what moral values and ethical principles are at risk or in question of being compromised 3 Ascertain what principles need to be expressed and defended in the situation – focus on one or two of the more critical values 4 Consider the possible adverse consequences/risks associated with taking action 5 Assess whether or not the adversity can be endured – determine what support/resources are available 6 Avoid stumbling blocks that might restrain moral courage, such as apprehension or over reflection leading to reasoning oneself out of being morally courageous in the situation 7 Continue to develop moral courage through education, training, and practice
