Chapter Three: Ethical Decision Making and Moral

Judgments

Unit Objectives
After reading this chapter, students will be able to:

1. Identify the moral or ethical standards.

2. Understand those standards how they applied to specific

situations we face.

3. Identify how good ethical decision is made.

4. Understand why we need to be moral (ethical) person.

3.1 Introduction
• This chapter aims to introduce ethical decision making process and
the need to be moral or right person.
• One of the functions of morality is to give guidance in dealing with
the problems.
• On the other hand, there are always conflicts or problems in the
people’s lives.
• So the conflicts or problems arise in the society should be maintained
and prevented or solved reasonably.
• Another function of morality is to provide principles and rules
that are acceptable to everyone and encourage people to live
together peacefully and cooperatively.
3.2 How Can We Make Ethical Decisions And Actions?
• Individuals could give their own justification to testify (confirm) that they are

right or correct!

• We often claim that we make right decisions and actions in order not adversely

affect our social relation. That is we regret when we make wrong decision and

action.

• The ethical nature of our decision and action, however, is very much dependent

upon our notion or belief of ``Good `` and ``Bad, `` Right `` and`` wrong``.

• Before we see how human beings judge the morality of their decisions and

actions, let raise some questions: What things are good or bad?
• There are things which we consider good or desirable for their result-for
what they lead to.
• The first kind of good is called instrumental (supportive and non-inherent)
good because the goodness of these things lies in their being instruments
towards the attainment of the other things.
• The second category of good is called intrinsic (inherent and basic) good
because we value these things not for what they lead to but for what they
are.
• Have you ever think of the opposite? Yes, there are things which are
instrumentally bad and intrinsically bad.
• In our country, things such as Female Genital Mutilation, early marriage,
abduction, Ignorance, poverty, corruption, murder or slaughter (killer) are
some of the things which are considered to be unethical or bad or evil
practices which are to be eradicated.
Activity:
• Would you give some examples that you consider good
(desirable) and bad or immoral in a society you come
from?
• One of the key tasks of ethical reasoning, generally, is to analyze and
critically consider the values we hold and the claims we make in relation
to the perceived obligations that we might have towards one another.

• Applying the processes of quality of life (the fact of having positive

experiences and avoiding negative experiences is considered deeply
morally significant).

• Respecting someone’s preferences is morally significant other ways, it is

challenging or bad).
• A second key task of ethics is to evaluate the adequacy of
reasons that we give for our actions.
• For example, whether the reasons offered to support a
particular course of action are based on sound or acceptable
and logical.
• Ethical values (principles or rules) are usually not as easy to understand as

other kinds of values,

• E.g. it is probably easier to explain mainly the practical value of energy than it

is to explain the ethical value of courage.

• The aim of ethics then, is not despite or in spite of popular opinion, to take the

high moral ground and tell people what to do about difficult problems.

• Good and ethical thinking purposefully acknowledge the diversity and

complexity of roles, situations and circumstances that arise in human life and

relationships.
 Activity:
• Form a group and develop a list of right behaviors and wrong
behaviors.
• Keep a record of those right behaviors (activities) that are nominated
or suggested and wrong behaviors that are suggested, too.
• Report your final list of right behaviors and wrong behaviors to your
teacher.
• What do you conclude from this exercise?
3.2.1 Ethical Principles and Values of Moral Judgments

• Ethics is the branch of philosophy that focuses and concerns on the scientific study

of a coherent set of ‘rules’ or principles by which people ought to live.

• The theoretical study of ethics is normally something that many people would

regard as being necessary in order for them to conduct their every day activities.

• In place of systematically examined ethical frameworks, most people instead carry

around a useful set of day-to-day ‘rules of thumb’ that influence and govern their

behavior.

• commonly, Ethical Principles and Values of Moral Judgments include rules

such as ‘it is bad or wrong to steal’, ‘it is good or right to help people and so on.
• But sometimes the complexities of life mean that these simple rules are
sometimes put to the test. Consider the idea that it is wrong to kill.

 Is it wrong to kill animals?

 Is killing in self-defense wrong?

 Is the termination of pregnancy wrong?

• If we try to apply our every day notions or beliefs of right and wrong to these
questions, straightforward answers are not always easy approach. We need to
examine these questions in more detail; and we need theoretical frameworks that
can help us to analyze complex problems and to find rational and coherent
solutions to those problems.
• Think about a significant decision that you have made that had an
effect (either for good or bad) on the lives of other people. This could
be a decision about changing a job, moving home, responding to a
dilemma, helping somebody who was in difficulty, etc.
• How did you arrive at your decision? Was your decision based
explicitly on ideas of what was right and wrong? Try to examine and
record precisely the justifications for your decision. Can you identify
any underlying principles or rules which you used to reach your
decision?
• Examples of such underlying principles or rules might include:
 ‘I should do the best thing for my career or job in the long run’.
 ‘It is ok to tell someone a lie if it prevents someone from being hurt’.
 ‘I should always help someone in difficulty’.
3.2. 2 Moral intuitions (assumptions) and Critical Reasoning

• The study of ethics involves reasoning about our feelings. In other words,
it involves making sense of and rationalizing our intuitions about what is
‘right’ or ‘good’. Almost all people, to a greater or lesser extent are capable
of experiencing feelings of empathy or understanding towards others.
• Empathy provides us with a sense of what others are feeling and may
thereby allow us to identify with other people.
• Empathy therefore, gives us what Traer (2013) refers to as our moral
sentiments; and ethical reasoning about these sentiments or feelings gives
us our moral principles.
 3.2.2.1 Rationalization
• Rationalization means, giving good justification and reasoning for making decisions
ethically or morally.
• Studying ethics, then, involves attempting to find valid or lawful and effective reasons for
the moral arguments that we make. Most people already have general ideas – or what
philosophers call ‘intuitions’ (assumptions or reasons) about what they think is ‘right’ or
‘wrong’. But a philosophical approach to ethics requires people to think critically about the
moral ideas that they hold, to support or refute those ideas with convincing arguments, and to
be able to articulate and explain the reasons and assumptions on which those arguments are
based.
• In moral philosophy, an argument is not simply about our beliefs or opinions; instead, it is
about the reasons underlying those beliefs or opinions. This means that the real value of
discussing and debating ethical questions is not to ‘win the argument’ or to ‘score points’
against the other person!
• It is more important to provide carefully considered arguments to support our ideas,
and to allow for rational and deeper understanding of the reasons underlying our
beliefs, ideas and attitudes.
• Crucially, this requires careful listening to, analysis of and learning from the arguments
that others make.
• A rationalization occurs when we use what at first glance seem to be rational

or credible motives to cover up our true (and perhaps unconscious) motives.

For example, if a landowner seeks to build a plastic recycling plant and states

that this is driven by a desire to create local employment opportunities –

whereas in fact his true motive is to make a profit – then this is a

rationalization.

• The landowner is not giving his true reasons for wanting to build the plant. If,

however, he argues that he wants to make a personal profit and create local

jobs, then he may be giving two true reasons for his motives.
3.2.2.2 Types of reasoning
• There are three forms or types of critical reasoning that individuals
can use to justify their arguments (cases):

1. Reasoning by similarity or likeness explains one thing by

comparing it to something else that is similar.
• For instance, animals are like and unlike humans, as humans are also
animals.
• Is the similarity sufficiently strong to support the argument (case)
that we should attribute rights to non-human animals as we do to
humans?’
2. Deductive reasoning- It enables someone to link general truth or organized
facts with prediction to a specific situation which may not have been directly
observed.
• For instance, if every person has human rights, and you are a person,
then you have human rights like every person.
3. Inductive reasoning- The fact that there is mounting evidence that
the burning of fossil fuels is having a detrimental effect on global
climate.
• For example, it is used to substantiate or confirm and approve the argument
that we have a moral duty to reduce carbon emissions.
• Inductive reasoning on the other hand, helps to establish general
conclusions on the basis of specific observations.
• Inductive reasoning as a conclusion is reached by observing and
collecting specific facts.
3.2.2.3 Ethics (morality) and Religious Faith
• There is another important argument that people use when making ethical

arguments (cases). For many people, ’morality and religious faith go hand in

hand’. Some moral philosophers do not view arguments based on religious faith

as being rationally defensible (justifiable).

• They believe that we can determine through rational reflection what is right

and wrong.

• If a God commands only what is right then, logically, this makes divine

commands unnecessary; we are able to know what is right or wrong without

relying on any divine commandments, as we can use rational reflection.

• However, faith-based arguments are relevant to moral philosophy for several reasons.

• For a start, people do not always agree on what is right or wrong. It is not therefore,

clear that we can determine what is right and wrong simply through rational reflection.

• Additionally, given that so many people in the world do look to religion for moral

guidance, we should not underestimate the ability of ‘the moral teachings of a religious

tradition.

• We may insist (maintain) that moral principles and decisions should be justified by

rational arguments, and thus, consideration of religious arguments should not be

excluded from the study of ethics and morality.

3.2.2.4 Testing moral arguments

• We have an idea of what we think is right based on our ethical

experience, and we explain those ideas to other people based on
our feelings (way of thinkings) and reasons.
• It is important and useful to develop the ability to test your own
arguments and those of others, both to address the dilemmas
that occur in our personal lives, in our communities and in the
organizations for which we work.

• There are three main ways to test a moral argument:

(1) Factual accuracy- This means that we cannot say that something is right or wrong

simply. This is reasonable, but it does not mean that ethical discussion should be

divorced from a fact; the accuracy of the factual content of a discussion is very

important. Consider the example — of someone who maintains that giving aid to

charities working in Africa is wrong because they believes that 90% of money

donated in fact goes to paying wealthy consultants and NGO workers, and only

10% goes to alleviate poverty.

• This person was factually morally incorrect, because 90% of all donations were

used to paying wealthy consultants and NGO workers, rather than the 90% of

donation goes to alleviate poverty.

(2) Consistency- Arguments need to be consistent. One can only argue that it is

morally wrong to kill one person and yet morally acceptable to kill another, if one

can demonstrate that there is a morally relevant difference between the two

individuals.

• For example, the moral argument that debts or money owed by poorer nations

to international lenders should be cancelled. Does this therefore, mean that all

poor people who owe debts or money to banks should also have cancelled?

• There is a moral difference between the two. Otherwise, your arguments (cases)

are inconsistent.
(3) Good will- While arguments may be factually correct and
consistent, they also need to ‘exemplify good will’.
• This involves resorting to our intuitions or perceptions and
emotions, which are notoriously or very difficult to integrate
with rigorous (precise) theoretical debate.
3.2.3 Thinking Ethically: A framework for Moral Decision Making

• The first step in analyzing moral issues is obvious but not

always easy.
• Some moral issues create controversies, and not always easy
to get the facts.
• To get the facts is resolving an ethical issue also requires an
appeal to values (always think ethically).
• Although ethics deals with or studies what is right and wrong, it is not a
discipline that always leads everyone to the same conclusion.
• For instance, deciding an ethical issue can be difficult for conservatives
and liberals (open-minded persons).
• To guide our reflection on such difficulties, philosophers, religious
teachers and other thinkers have shaped various (five) approaches or
ways to ethical decision-making.
• The five different approaches or ways to deal with moral issues are:
 Fairness or Justice,
 The common Good,
 The Utilitarian (useful and functional),
 The Rights, and
 The Virtues (good quality and good value).
3.2.3.1 Fairness or Justice Approach
• The fairness or justice approach to ethics has its roots in the
teachings of the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle who said
that “equals should be treated equally and unequals should
be treated unequally”.
• The basic moral question in this approach is:
• How fair is an action?
• Does it treat everyone in the same way, or does it show bias
and discrimination?
3.2.3.2 The Common Good Approach
• The Greek philosophers have also contributed the notion or belief that life in a

community is good in itself and our actions should contribute to that life.

• This approach suggests that the interlocking relationships of society are the basis

of ethical reasoning and that respect and compassion for all others especially the

vulnerable are requirements of such reasoning.

• This approach also calls attention to the common conditions that are important to

the welfare (interest and benefit) of everyone. This may be a system of laws,

effective police, effective fire departments, effective health care, effective public

educational system or even effective public recreation areas.

• This approach to ethics assumes a society comprising individuals
whose own good is inextricably linked to the good of the
community.
• Community members have common values and goals.

• The common good is a notion (belief) that originated more than 2,000
years ago in the writings of Plato, Aristotle and Cicero.
• More recently, contemporary ethicist John Rawls defined the
common good as "certain general conditions that are equally to
everyone's advantage in the community".
• In this approach, we focus on ensuring that the social policies,
social systems, institutions and environments on which we
depend are beneficial to all.
• Examples of common goods to all include affordable health
care, effective public safety, peace among nations, a just
legal system and unpolluted environment.
• The principle of the common good approach states;
• “What is ethical means, what advances the common good”.
 3.2.3.3 The Rights Approach
• The other important approach to ethics has its roots in the philosophy of the 18th century

thinker Immanuel Kant and others like him who focused on the individual’s right to choose for

her or himself.

• According to these philosophers, what makes human beings different from ordinary things is

that people have dignity based on their ability to choose freely what they will do with their

lives and they have a fundamental moral right to have these choices respected.

• People are not objects to be manipulated; it is a violation of human dignity to use people in

ways they do not freely choose.

• Many different but related other rights exist besides the basic human rights.

• Among these rights are:

 a) The Right to the Truth: We have a right to be told the truth and to be informed about matters that

significantly affect our choices.

b) The Right of Privacy: We have the right to do, believe, and say whatever we choose in our personal

lives so long as we do not violate the rights of others.

c) The Right not to be injured: We have the right not to be harmed or injured unless we freely and

knowingly do something to deserve punishment or we freely and knowingly choose to risk such

injuries.

d) The Right to what is agreed: We have the right to what has been promised those with whom we have

freely entered into a contract or agreement.

• In deciding whether an action is moral or immoral using this approach, we must ask, does the action

respect the moral rights of everyone? Actions are wrong to the extent they violate the rights of other

individuals; the more serious the violation, the more wrongful the action.
• Each person has a fundamental or basic right to be respected
and treated as free and equal rational person capable of
making his/her own decisions.
• E.g. privacy, free consent, freedom of conscience (freedom of
integrity), etc. must be protected if a person is to have the
freedom to direct his or her own life.
 Activity:

• Reflect one of your ethical decisions. Which approach (es) did

you use when you are making your determination or
decisions?
• Evaluate the effectiveness of the approach (es) as well as the
quality of your choice for your decisions.
• What did you learn from this experience?
Generally, in Ethical Problem Solving
Once facts have been ascertained, consider five questions when trying to resolve a moral

issue:

1) What benefits and what harms will each course of action produce, and which alternative

course of action will lead to the best overall consequences?

2) What moral rights do the affected parties have, and which course of action best respects

those rights?

3) Which course of action treats everyone the same, except where there is a morally

justifiable reason not to, and does not show favoritism or discrimination?

4) Which course of action advances the common good or the public?

5) Which course of action develops moral virtues or moral qualities and values?
3.3 To Whom or What Does Morality Apply?

• In discussing the application of morality, four aspects may be

considered: religious morality, morality and nature, individual
morality and social morality.

3.3.1 Religious Morality

• Religious morality refers to a human being in relationship to a
supernatural being.
• In the Jewish and Christian traditions, for example, the first three of
the Ten Commandments or directives pertain to this kind of morality.
The Ten Commandments (directives) of Religious morality
1. I am the Lord, Your God; do not worship false gods.
2. Do not take the name of God in useless.
3. Keep holy the Sabbath (weekend) Day.
4. Honor your father and your mother.
5. Do not kill.
6. Do not commit (disappoint) adultery.
7. Do not steal.
8. Do not bear (do not give and accept) false witness against your
neighbor.
9. Do not covet (wish and desire) your neighbor’s spouse.
10. Do not covet (wish and desire) your neighbor’s belongings.
 3.3.2 Morality and Nature
• “Morality and nature” refers to a human being in relation to nature.

• Natural morality has been predominant in all primitive cultures, such as that of the Native

American and in cultures of the Far East.

• More recently, the Western tradition has also become aware of the significance of dealing

with nature in a moral manner.

• Some see nature as being valuable only for the good of humanity, but many others have come to

see it as a good in itself, worthy of moral consideration.

• With this viewpoint, there is no question about whether a Robinson Crusoe would be capable of

moral or immoral actions on a desert island by himself.

• In the morality and nature aspect, Robinson Crusoe could be considered either moral or

immoral, depending upon person’s actions toward the natural things around him.
3.3.3 Individual Morality
• Individual morality refers to individuals in relation to themselves and to
an individual code of morality that may or may not be sanctioned by any
society or religion.

• It allows for a “higher morality,” which can be found within the individual
rather than beyond this world in some supernatural realm.

• A person may or may not perform some particular act, based on a

society, law or religion belief but he himself thinks, it is right or
wrong from within his own conscience (in his own principle and
integrity).
3.3.4 Social Morality
• Social morality concerns a human being in relation to other
human beings.
• It is probably the most important aspect of morality, in that it
cuts across all of the other aspects and is found in more ethical
systems than any of the others.
• Many ethical systems would allow that what he would do
to himself is strictly his business, “as long as it doesn’t
harm anyone else.”
3.4 Who is Morally/Ethically Responsible?
• Morality pertains or relates only to all normal human beings.
• If one wants to attribute morality to supernatural beings, one
has to do so solely on faith.
• If one wants to hold animals or plants morally responsible for
destructive acts against each other or against humans, then one
has to ignore most of the evidence that science has given us
concerning the instinctual behavior of such beings and the
evidence of our own every day observations.
• Recent experimentation with the teaching of language to animals suggests
that they are at least minimally capable of developing some thought
processes similar to those of humans.
• It is even possible that they might be taught morality in the future, as humans
are now. If this were to occur, then animals could be held morally
responsible for their actions.
• At the present time, however, most evidence seems to indicate that they, as
well as plants, should be classified as either non-moral or immoral - that is,
they should be considered either as having no moral sense or as being out of
the moral sphere altogether.
• Therefore, when we use the terms moral and ethical, we are using them in
reference only to human beings.
• We do not hold a wolf morally responsible for killing a sheep or an eagle
morally responsible for killing a chicken. We may kill the wolf or fox for
having done this act, but we do not kill it because we hold the animal
morally responsible.
• We do it because we don‘t want any more of our sheep or chickens to be
killed. At this point in the world‘s history, only human beings can be moral
or immoral, and therefore only human beings should be held morally
responsible for their actions and behavior.
3.4.1 Moral Judgments
• Moral judgments refer to deciding what is right and what is wrong in human
relations.
• Individuals are continually judging their own conduct and that of their fellows.
• They approve of some acts and call them right or good. They condemn other
acts and call them wrong or evil or bad.
• Moral judgments always have to do with the actions of human beings and, in
particular, with voluntary actions - those actions freely chosen.
• Involuntary actions - those over which people have no control - are rarely
open to moral judgment, as a person usually is not held responsible for an
action that she/he did not initiate.
• Moral judgments are evaluative because they place value on things or on
relations or on human actions; which determine what is right or wrong,
good or bad decision.
• They are also normative because they evaluate or assess the moral worth of
something based on some norms or standards.
• Finding the right course of action and choosing the
right alternative, is not always simple.
• We can have no set of rules for judgment, since every
application of a rule would itself needs
supplementing with further rules.
• Onora O’Neill argues that moral principles do not provide us
with an auto-pilot for life and that judgment is always needed
in using rules or principles.
• When conflicts of interest arise, the solution may require the
greatest sensitivity (understanding), experience, judgment,
intelligence and goodwill. However, in judging conduct or an
action, we have to consider motives, means, consequences
and the moral situation.
1. Motives: as Jesus, Kant, and others have pointed out,
motives are basic for a determination of morality.
• The motive refers to the intention (purpose) why an
action is done.
• A good motive is a prerequisite to conduct that we
approve something without qualification or without
restriction.
2. Means: Just as there may be many motives for desiring something, there may be many

means for achieving it.

• The term means can be defined as an agency, instrument or method used to attain an end

or to attain stated purpose.

• Though we expect people to use the best available means to carry out their intentions or

purposes, we condemn them if their choice of means impresses us as unjust, cruel or

immoral.

• However, there is a danger in proposing that any means may be used, provided the end is

good or that the end justifies the means.

• Once chosen, the means become part of the general effect of an act.
3. Consequences: Consequences are the effects or results or
outcomes of a moral decision based on a value.
• We expect the consequences of an act that we call right to
be good.
• Kant agrees to the good motive, when it is utilitarian or
useful to the expected result.
• In general, society judges conduct right if it proceeds from
a good motive, through the use of the best available means
to consequences that are good.
• If these conditions are not fulfilled, we condemn the
action or approve it with reservations.
 4. The Moral Situation: A moral situation involves moral agents
(instruments and driving forces).
• Human beings who act, are empowered to make choices and
consciously make decisions.
• As moral agents, demands are made on us and place us under
obligations.
• we have both duties and rights. We are faced with moral alternatives,
and we can better weigh those alternatives when we have an
understanding of the ingredients of the moral situation.
3.4.2 What Makes an Action Moral?
• Sometimes we think of moral means morally good. But, philosophically, it

refers to an action which comes within the scope of morality, that is, an action

which is morally significant either in positive way ( because an action is good or

right) or in a negative way (because an action is bad or wrong).

• Not all actions have a moral sense. Many of the actions we perform in life are

either good or bad or right or wrong acts.

• For instance, stealing from your libraries, and punching people are

considered as morally insignificant or immoral action.

• The following are features that make an action moral:

A. A moral act involves an agent: Humans can be moral agents that can freely and

thoughtfully choose their actions, will count as a moral agent.

B. A moral act involves intention: An intention here refers to our motives that are

important to determine the rightness or wrongness of an action.

• If an action is done accidentally, it may be considered as a morally neutral or mostly

wrong action.

C. A moral act affects others: A moral act needs not only an agent but it also needs to

affect others that is, an action is harmful (be it physical, psychological, emotional

or depriving others of happiness) or affecting beneficial consequences for others.

• Some have claimed that morality also governs behavior that affects only the agent
himself/herself, such as taking recreational drugs, masturbation and not developing
one's talents.
• Confusion about the content of morality arises because morality is not always
distinguished from religion.

• Regarding self-affecting behavior as governed by morality is supported by the idea

that we are created by God and are obliged to obey his commands, and so may be a

holdover from the time when morality was not clearly distinguished from religion.
• This religious holdover might also affect the claim that some sexual practices such
as homosexuality are immoral; but those who distinguish morality from religion do
not regard homosexuality, as an immoral matter.
3.4.3 Why Should Human Beings Be Morally Good?

The question that is worth mentioning at this point is why should

human beings be moral? Another way of putting the problem is as
follows: Is there any clear foundation or basis for morality can
any reasons be found for human beings to be good and do right
acts rather than be bad and do wrong acts?
• Let us assume for the moment that there is no supernatural
morality and see if we can find any other reasons why people
should be moral.
• There can not be society without moral regulation/
rule.
• We should be moral or morally good because being
morally good is following the rules designed to over
rule self-interest whenever it is in the interest of every
one alike that everyone should set aside his interest
(John Hospers).
A. Argument from Enlightened Self-Interest
• As a matter of fact, self-interest is the sole basis of one ethical theory, egoism ethics.

However, it is not being suggested at this point that one ought to pursue one‘s own self-

interest. Rather, an argument is being presented that if everyone tried to do and be good

and tried to avoid and prevent bad, it would be in everyone‘s self-interest.

• For example, if within a group of people no one killed, stole, lied or cheated, then each

member of the group would benefit the people.

• An individual member of the group could say, it is in my self-interest to do good rather

than bad because I stand to benefit if I do and also I could be punished if I don‘t.

• Therefore, even though it is not airtight (sound or strong), the argument from enlightened

self-interest is compelling (exiting).

B. Argument from Tradition and Law

• The argument from tradition and law suggests that

traditions and laws were established over a long
period of time.
• Tradition and law govern the behavior of human
beings, and because these traditions and laws urge or
need human beings to be moral rather than
immoral, there are good reasons for being so.
C. Common Human Needs
• Why we human beings should be morally good?
• If we examine human nature as empirically and rationally as we can, we discover that all

human beings have many needs, desires, goals and objectives in common. For

example, people generally seem to need friendship, love, happiness, freedom, peace,

creativity and stability in their lives, not only for themselves but for others, too.

• In order to satisfy these needs, people must establish and follow moral principles and

rules that encourage them to cooperate with one another and that free them from fear

that they will lose their lives, be mutilated (harmed) or be stolen, be lied, be cheated,

and be severely restricted or imprisoned.

• Morality exists, in part, because of human needs and through
recognition of the importance of living together in a
cooperative and significant way.
• All human beings should be morally good or even that it will
always be in each individual‘s self-interest to be morally good.
• Adhering or following and sticking to moral principles enables
human beings to live their lives as peacefully, happily,
creatively and meaningfully as far as possible.
• Generally, in a society where morality is declined, crime, death, looting, instability, social

abnormality, suicide, human right violation, corruption and other socio-economic and political

crises will prevail. With human self-interest as strong as it is, what can motivate us to always

follow the rules of morality?

 Questions, “Why we humans be moral or ethical?” the following are among the most common

answers for this question:

• Behaving morally is a matter of self-respect.

• People won’t like us if we behave immorally.

• Society punishes immoral behavior.

• God tells us to be moral.

• Parents need to be moral role models for their children.

• From Hobbes’s perspective, morality consists of a set of moral rules.

• The five social benefits of establishing and following moral rules accomplish the following

points:

a) Keep the society from falling apart.

b) Reduce human suffering.

c) Promote human flourishing or human prosperous and success.

d) Resolve conflicts of interest in just and orderly ways.

e) Assign praise and reward, and avoid punishment and guilt.

• Morality is thus a set of rules that enable us to reach our collective goals.
Chapter Summary
• Ethical reasoning ability is considered vitally important in the
shared concepts and principles that guide common ethical
issues.
• It offers a rationale or validation that provides energy for
elaborating on an ethical reasoning structure.
• Ethical theories and principles are the foundations of ethical
analysis because they are the viewpoints from which guidance
can be obtained along the pathway to a decision.
• A person making an ethical decision needs a procedure to
make her/his decision with rationality and respect.
• Thus, one has to develop a habit of pursuing justice if he/she
wants to be a just person.
• Aristotle says that moral practice is a very important factor in
being a morally good person.
• One cannot have a moral character if the person does not
constantly practice to be moral.