ETHICS

SUBMITTED BY:

Bellen, Dante J., Jr.

Bulatao, Ryan Gervin G

Carillo, James Anton D.

Galang, Cher Alison

Gutierrez, Franchesca Jillian E.

Mayuga, Marriane J.

Soriano, Lyca Y.

Tumamao, Michelle O.

SUBMITTED TO:

Prof. Norvin L. Tamisin

July 2, 2019
I. The 7-Step Moral Reasoning Model

a. Diagram
b. State the Problem
c. Check the Facts
d. Identify Irrelevant Factors
e. Develop List of Options
f. Test the Options
g. Make a Choice Based on Steps 1 to 5
h. Review Steps 1 to 6

II. The Difference between Reason and Will

a. Reason (Philosophical Aspect, Theological Aspect)

b. Will (General Meaning, Philosophical Importance)

III. Moral Theories and Mental Frames

a. Morality and Ethics

b. Moral Theories
i. Moral Subjectivism
ii. Cultural Relativism
iii. Ethical Egoism
iv. Divine Command Theory
v. Virtue Ethics
vi. Feminist Ethics
vii. Utilitarianism
viii. Kantian
ix. Rights-based Theories
x. Contractarianism

c. Mental Frames
i. The Yin-Yang of Frames
 I. The 7-Step Moral Reasoning Model

The 7- Step Moral Reasoning Model

State the problem

7 1 Check the facts

2
Identify relevant
6 factors
Develop a list of
options
Test the options
5 3
4
Make Choice

Review the steps

1. State the Problem

For example, “There's something about this decision that makes me uncomfortable" or "do I
have a conflict of interest?"

2. Check the Facts

Many problems disappear upon closer examination of the situation, while others change
radically.
 3. Identify Relevant Factors

For example, persons involved, laws, professional code, other practical constraints.

4. Develop List of Options

Be imaginative, try to avoid “dilemmas”; not “yes” or “no” but whom to go to, what to say

5. Test the Options

Use such tests as the following:

 Harm test: Does this option do less harm than alternatives?

 Publicity test: Would I want my choice of this option published in the newspaper? •

 Defensibility test: Could I defend this choice of option before a Congressional committee
or committee of peers?

 Reversibility test: Would I still think choice of this option good if I were adversely
affected by it? •

 Colleague test: What might my profession’s governing board or ethics committee say
about this option?

 Organization test: What does the organization’s ethics officer or legal counsel say about
this?

6. Make a choice based on Steps 1 to 5

7. Review Steps 1 to 6

What could you do to make it less likely that you would have to make such a decision again?

 Are there any precautions you can take as an individual (e.g., announce your policy on
the question, change jobs, etc.)?

 Is there any way to have more support next time?

  Is there any way to change the organization (e.g., suggest policy changes at the next
department meeting)?

II. The Difference between Reason and Will

Philosophical Aspect Theological

REASON

Aspect

Reason is the faculty or Reason is the human

process of drawing logical intelligence exercised upon
references. religious truth whether by way
of discovery or by way
of explanation.

Philosophical General Meaning

WILL

Importance Will is that faculty of the mind

which selects, at the moment of
It is considered central to
decision, a desire from among
the field of ethics because the various desires present.
of its role in enabling Will does not refer to any
deliberate action. particular desire, but
rather to the mechanism
for choosing from
+ among one's desires.

Reason is the reason why we have will.

Illustration

You have exams next week and if you fail, you will lose your scholarships.
Will : You’re determined to pass the exam and are continuously reviewing your notes.

Reason : You don’t want to lose your scholarships.

Understanding : If you don’t study, you will fail.

UNDERSTANDING + REASON > WILL

III. Moral Theories and Mental Frames

Morality is the system through which we determine right and wrong conduct -- i.e., the guide
to good or right conduct.

Ethics is the philosophical study of Morality.

Moral Theories

Theory - is a structured set of statements used to explain (or predict) a set of facts or concepts.

A moral theory, then, explains why a certain action is wrong -- or why we ought to act in
certain ways.

It is a theory of how we determine right and wrong conduct.

Moral theories provide the framework upon which we think and discuss in a reasoned way,
and so evaluate, specific moral issues.

1. Moral Subjectivism

“Right and wrong is determined by what you -- the subject -- just happens to think (or 'feel') is
right or wrong.

Moral Subjectivism amounts to the denial of moral principles of any significant kind, and the
possibility of moral criticism and argumentation.

In essence, 'right' and 'wrong' lose their meaning because so long as someone thinks or feels
that some action is 'right', there are no grounds for criticism.
2. Cultural Relativism

“Right and wrong is determined by the particular set of principles or rules the relevant
culture just happens to hold at the time.”

Cultural Relativism is closely linked to Moral Subjectivism.

It implies that we cannot criticize the actions of those in cultures other than our own. And
again, it amounts to the denial of universal moral principles.

Also, it implies that a culture cannot be mistaken about what is right and wrong (which
seems not to be true), and so it denies the possibility of moral advancement (which also
seems not to be true).

3. Ethical Egoism

“Right and wrong is determined by what is in your self-interest. Or, it is immoral to act
contrary to your self-interest.”

Ethical Egoism is usually based upon Psychological Egoism -- that we, by nature, act
selfishly.

This may require that we forgot some immediate pleasures for the sake of achieving some
long term goals.

Also, ethical egoism does not exclude helping others. However, egoists will help others only
if this will further their own interests.

This leads us to the key implausibility of Ethical Egoism -- that the person who helps others
at the expense of their self-interest is actually acting immorally.

4. Divine Command Theory

“Right and wrong is determined by what God tells us what to do or not to do.”

Many claim that there is a necessary connection between morality and religion, such that,
without religion (in particular, without God or gods) there is no morality, i.e., no right and
wrong behaviour. Also, it implies that a culture cannot be mistaken about what is right and
wrong (which seems not to be true), and so it denies the possibility of moral advancement
(which also seems not to be true).
 The upshot is that an action is right -- or obligatory -- if God command we do it, wrong if
God commands we refrain from doing it, and morally permissible if God does not command
that it not be done

5. Virtue Ethics

“Right and wrong are characterized in terms of acting in accordance with the traditional
virtues -- making the good person.”

Aristotle, and most of the ancient Greeks really had nothing to say about moral duty, i.e.,
modern day moral concepts. Rather, they were concerned with what makes human beings
truly 'happy'.

True 'happiness' is called Eudaimonia (flourishing / well- being / fulfilment / self-

actualization).

Like Plato, Aristotle wants to show that there are objective reasons for living in accordance
with the traditional virtues (wisdom, courage, justice and temperance).

For Aristotle, this comes from a particular account of human nature -- i.e., the virtuous life is
the 'happiest' (most fulfilling) life.

6. Feminist Ethics

“Right and wrong is to be found in womens' responses to the relationship of caring.”

Comes out of the criticism that all other moral theories are 'masculine' -- display a male bias.

Feminist ethics suggests that we need to consider the self as at least partly constructed by
social relations.

Morality, according to some feminist moral philosophers, must be ground in 'moral emotions'
like love and sympathy, leading to relationships of caring.

7. Utilitarianism

“Right and wrong is determined by the overall goodness (utility) of the consequences of
action.”

All action leads to some end. But there is a summum bonum -- the highest good/end. This is
pleasure or happiness.
 Also, that there is a First Principle of Morals -- 'Principle of Utility', alternatively called 'The
Greatest Happiness Principle' (GHP), usually characterized as the ideal of working
towards the greatest happiness of the greatest number.

The GHP implies that we ought to act so as to maximize human welfare. We do this in a
particular instance by choosing the action that maximizes pleasure/happiness and minimizing
suffering.

For Utilitarians, no action is intrinsically right or wrong.

No person's preferences or interests (including your own, your relatives, friends, neighbours,
etc.) carry a greater weight than any other person's.

8. Kantian

“Right and wrong is determined by rationality, giving universal duties”

That there is "the supreme principle of morality"

Good and Evil are defined in terms of Law / Duty / Obligation.

Kant thought that acting morally was quite simple. That is:

- you ought to do your duty (simply because it is your duty).

- Reason guides you to this conclusion.

Good Will (i.e., having the right intentions) is the only thing that is good without
qualification.

So, actions are truly moral only if they have the right intention, i.e., based on Good Will.

9. Rights-based Theories

“We are to act in accordance with a set of moral rights, which we possess simply by being
human.”

The basic idea is that if someone has a right, then others have a corresponding duty to
provide what the right requires.

A positive right is one in which the corresponding duty requires a positive action, e.g., giving
a charitable donation in order to sustain someone's right to life, shelter, education, etc.
 A negative right is one in which the corresponding duty merely requires refraining from
doing something that will harm someone.

10. Contractarianism

“The principles of right and wrong (or Justice) are those which everyone in society would
agree upon in forming a social contract.”

In general, the idea is that the principles or rules that determine right and wrong in society are
determined by a hypothetical contract forming procedure.

The idea is to start by thinking, hypothetically, that we are at the beginning of forming a
society and we want to know which principles of justice to ground the society.

Mental Frames

“Life is what you make It.” is something we’ve all heard before and it is also the embodiment
of mental framing. If we learn to control our frame, our emotional state will improve
drastically regardless of what life throws at us.

Illustration: You’re driving to work.

Frames:

 We are driving to work to make money.

 We are making money to pay for food, utilities, shelter, and modern commodities.

 We pay for these things because they are necessary to our survival and quality of life.

 We are using a car because it is the most convenient and efficient way for us to travel.

 This is because a personal car is there strictly for our use, as opposed to public
transportation.

The Yin-Yang of Frames

For almost any given situation, we have the choice to either frame it in a positive light, or to
plunge it into the dark clutches of negativity.
 As we frame things negatively we affect our own state of mind in the same way. Negative
frames allow us to feel justified playing the victim. They give us more excuses as to why we
can or cannot do something and this keeps us from our goals.

We are what we eat, so if we feed our brain negativity we can be sure of the result.

This goes both ways however, and framing things in a positive way will improve our mood
and help us to develop compassion for others.

Illustration: Driving to work. Suddenly, someone recklessly cuts us off at an intersection

nearly causing an accident.

 Negative Frames:

WHAT is WRONG with this guy?

WHAT an A**HOLE this guys doesn’t care about anyone but himself!

 Positive Frames:

I remember when I did something like that; I was having a terrible day and running very
late. Poor guy.

Maybe he is very tired and his reaction time is off.

Perhaps it was just a simple mistake that, in the moment, he felt he had to commit to or cause
an even greater mix-up.
 REFERENCES

http://home.sandiego.edu/~baber/gender/MoralTheories.html

https://www.google.com.ph/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https%3A%2F%2F2.zoppoz.workers.dev%3A443%2Fhttp%2Fwww2.econ.ias
tate.edu%2Fclasses%2Fecon362%2Fhallam%2FPresentations%2FMoralTheories.ppt&ved=2ah
UKEwiPutPu0o7jAhWRFIgKHZVBDd0QFjAMegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw3gM7ojAjfHB4NP
s4AcuUUj

https://www.google.com.ph/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https%3A%2F%2F2.zoppoz.workers.dev%3A443%2Fhttps%2Fpdfs.semantic
scholar.org%2F7ce7%2Fcec807f64b125906c889bb67c4b39916ceb0.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiPutPu
0o7jAhWRFIgKHZVBDd0QFjACegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw2Lbo63yinhJmMIKAqSsINy

https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/video/framing

https://cedar.wwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1563&context=wwuet

https://solitarymindspace.com/what-is-mental-framing

https://sevenpillarsinstitute.org/ethics-101/moral-traditions/

https://possibleculture.wordpress.com/mental-frames/

https://medium.com/@jackkrupansky/what-is-reason-a3f2c7a72209

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/will

https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/reason-ethics

http://sohowdoweknow.weebly.com/forum/reason-and-ethics

https://slideplayer.com/slide/9071998/

http://fc.civil.tamu.edu/home/FCVersion2/ethical-social/320/SevenStepGuide.pdf