PAMANTASAN

NG LUNGSOD NG VALENZUELA
PROF. RUNNEL SANTOS BAGUIOET
MODULE: ETHICS


UNIT 4: THE ETHICS OF SENTIMENT, REASON AND COURAGE

TOPICS TO BE COVERED

A. SENTIMENT AND MORAL DECISION-MAKING
B. FEELINGS AND REASON
C. THE MORAL IMPETUS OF IMPARTIALITY
D. THE SEVEN-STEP GUIDE TO MORAL REASONING
E. MORAL COURAGE
F. VICE AND VIRTUE
G. PHYSICAL AND MORAL COURAGE
H. THE MORAL IMPERATIVE OF THE WILL

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

1. Establish the role sentiment, reason, and courage play in ethical and moral decision-
making;
2. Elaborate on the philosophical ideas that strengthen sentiment, reason, and courage,
and their link to morality and ethics
3. Outline the significance of sentiment when making moral and ethical valuations;
4. Outline the significance of reason when making moral and ethical valuations;
5. Outline the significance of the will when making moral and ethical valuations;
6. Define courage and specify the nuances between its two classifications (physical and
moral).

QUESTION: WHAT ARE THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES WHEN A PERSON
MAKES MORAL VALUATIONS BASED SOLELY ON FEELINGS?

INTRODUCTION:

The 18th century Scottish philosopher David Hume, in his work, A Treatise of Human
Nature, furthered the idea that morality is based not on reason but on emotions.
1. Reason alone cannot be a motive to the will, but rather is the “slave of the passions”;
2. Moral distinctions are not derived from reason;
3. Moral distinctions are derived from moral sentiments; that is, the feeling of approval
(esteem, praise) and disapproval (blame) felt by spectators who contemplate a character
trait or action;
4. While some virtues and vices are natural, others, including justice, are artificial.

The way Hume sees it, the reliance on reason alone simply cannot suffice when making
moral valuations. “Hume’s Law,” as what English moral philosopher R.M. Hare (2014) calls
it, advances the thought that a moral imperative, or an “ought”, cannot proceed from an
“is”, or a mere factual observation. (Rayner, 2005).

Ultimately, sentiments serve as the true grounding principle of morality, not reason In the
beginning of An Enquiry Concerning the Principle of Morals (1983), David Hume states:
“They (reason) discover truths: But where the truths which they discover are indifferent
and beget no desire or aversion, they can have no influence on conduct and behavior. What
is honorable, what is fair, what is becoming, what is noble, what is generous, takes
possession of the heart, and animates us to embrace and maintain it. What is intelligible,
what is evident, what is probable, what is true, produce only the cool assent of the
understanding… extinguish all the warm feelings and prepossessions in favor of virtue, and
all disgust or aversion to vice: Render men totally indifferent towards those distinctions;
and morality is no longer a practical study, nor has any tendency to regulate our lives and
actions.”

SENTIMENT AND MORAL DECISION-MAKING

A rational person is completely different from a moral one, because rationality in and of
itself is not automatically equivalent to morality.

Say there is a cop and a bank robber. Both are rational in that they employ proper
reasoning in accomplishing certain objectives, be it apprehending outlaws or pulling off a
heist job. But for obvious reasons, they are not moral equals.

In other words, man’s decision to act morally is not exclusively ensconced in reason. For
Hume, reason only strives to determine truths present in the external realities of objects.
Furthermore, reason only informs us about what transpired and how. So, in assessing the
moral value (or lack thereof) of an incident that man empirically bears witness to or
participates in, logically, he must turn to his feelings.

There is no such thing as an objective moral truth, only subjective moral judgments
anchored on feelings.

According to Immanuel Kant, Man as a moral agent can only attain virtue if feelings play no
significant role in making decisions.

For Kant, man’s moral agency can only be perfected if decisions are based solely on
rationality and not on passions, which he sees as an enemy of virtue (Churchland, 1996).

QUESTION: WHAT ARE THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES WHEN A PERSON
MAKES MORAL VALUATIONS BASED SOLELY ON IMPARTIALITY?

The concept of grace. In deciding on important matters, no approach is more appropriate
than a moral one. Morality, after all, is first and foremost a matter of consulting reason
(Rachels, 2003). Given that feelings sometimes get the better of people when choosing
where to stand on issues, sound moral reasoning must play an even more critical role,
hence this chapter.

As naturally gratifying as it is to welcome arguments that confirm our views, it is also
expected of us to do the same, without favor, to those advanced by the opposing side. Not
doing so courts what Leon Festinger (1962) labels as cognitive dissonance.

COGNITIVE DISSONANCE

“Sometimes people hold a core belief that is
very strong. When they are presented with
evidence that works against that belief, the
new evidence cannot be accepted. It would
create a feeling that is extremely
uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance.
And because it is so important to protect the
core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and
even deny anything that doesn’t fit with the
core belief.”
-Frantz Fanon (Black Skin, White Masks)


Prejudice is an intrinsic flaw in human thought, so in order to keep intact the moral
soundness of a decision, one must pay heed to facts. Though here arises a pressing
question: How do we exactly ascertain if something is factual or not?

Unfortunately, there is no fixed formula in doing so! Though facts nevertheless act as shield
against potent emotional appeals designed to either change or further reinforce one’s
opinion.

COGNITIVE DISSONANCE

Those who suffered from leprosy (or Hansen’s Disease) back in the Middle Ages were
expelled from mainstream society and resettled in “leper colonies” due to the unfounded
belief that the disease is incurable and spreads fast. The heavy physical disfigurements of
the sufferers proved enough to frighten people, despite later scientific evidences pointing
to the contrary.

REASON AND IMPARTIALITY

In short, reason and impartiality, as guided by sound judgment, can be reliable tools in
bypassing the subjectivity of feelings (which sometimes distract from making the right
decisions).

BUT HOW DO THEY RELATE TO MORALITY?

THE MORAL IMPETUS OF IMPARTIALITY

Impartiality simply states that no one is above or beneath any standard when making
moral valuations. So, favoring one person over another on the sole basis of race or skin
color, for instance, is never justifiable. Moral judgments, after all, should be backed by
reason. (Rachels, 2003)

In that regard, using complexion/skin color (or sexual preference and religious orientation,
for that matter) as guiding principle when making moral valuations on people is not only
invalid but also morally indefensible.

The Antebellum era, the period in the American South leading up to the Civil War when
racism (i.e. the enslavement of black people) was not only a norm but also a lucrative
industry, is one historical example of when moral impartiality was not properly observed.

The Philippines under Spanish colonial rule is another, a time when the natives (called
“indios”) were discriminated against mainly due to their inferior physical appearance and
their perceived laziness (a claim without evidence).




REASON AND IMPARTIALITY IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT DEFENSE ACT (FADA)

The so-called First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) was introduced in the United States
Congress in June 10, 2015 by Senator Mike Lee of Utah and House Representative Raul
Labrador of Ohio. This controversial bill, if passed into law, will protect people who will
take actions against others “on the basis that they acted in accordance with a religious
belief or moral conviction” from being penalized by the federal government. Its scope will
cover acts of discrimination committed against the third sex that are premised on the idea
that:

1. Marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and woman, or
2. Sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage (like the example above).

Is FADA legislating hate against the LGBTQ community? Or is it protecting people from
being discriminated for standing up for their religious beliefs?

THE SEVEN-STEP GUIDE TO MORAL REASONING BY MICHAEL DAVIS

1. State the problem.
2. Check the facts
3. Identify relevant factors.
4. Develop a list of options.
5. Test the options.

-Harm Test (Would less harm be done on other people when I favor
this one decision over the others?)

-Publicity Test (Would I be proud of this decision if it makes the evening news? Would I
want my loved ones to know?)

-Defensibility Test
(Would I be able to defend this decision before the court or a panel of reviewers without
appearing self-serving?)

-Organization Test
(What would my company’s (or organization’s) ethics officials and/or legal counsel say
regarding the option?)

-Virtue Test
(What kind of person would also choose such an option? Is he/she who someone might
consider as “virtuous”? What would become of me if I enact this option all the time?)

6. Come up with a choice or decision based on the above-mentioned steps.
7. Review Steps 1–6.

What can you do to prevent making such a decision again? Are there precautions to take?
What changes should be affected on an organizational and personal level (such as
reviewing policy or being a more discerning employee, among others)? Would it be
possible to get more support next time?

MORAL COURAGE

To thoroughly interrogate man’s character, one should raise the question, “WHAT IS THE
GOOD OF MAN?”

The answer to this, quite simplistically, is the soul’s adherence to virtue. Virtue, as defined
by Aristotle, is a character trait that manifests in the habitual performance of a set of
behavioral cues.

Take for example a compassionate individual. He/she never demonstrates compassion only
on occasions, for this is a defining (and unchangeable) aspect of his/her character. In other
words, he/she must be compassionate at all times.

The abovementioned definition of virtue, though relatively all-encompassing, is rather
incomplete.

VIRTUE is a trait of character, manifested in habitual action, that is good for a person to
have (Rachels, 2003). This extends to moral virtues as well, courage included.

COURAGE DEFINED

COURAGE is that which sits between the extremes of cowardice and recklessness, the same
way virtue does between excess and deficiency. Courage resides at the nexus point of
danger and endurance, and can be classified as either physical or moral.

COWARDICE is either retreat or complete inaction in the face of adversity, while
recklessness is immature risk-taking.

Conventional wisdom implies that courage is a deeply-held military virtue (though there
exists a more specific term for it: belligerence), as it is obviously a prerequisite in combat.
In engaging an enemy on a physical level, there is evident danger that only the absence of
fear in man can hurdle.

But courage serves an equally important function in the lives of people outside the army. In
fact, it can be present even in the most ostensibly harmless of environments. A frail student
standing up to the resident bully in a school setting, though in no way comparable to a
military skirmish, is nevertheless courage manifest. So is a patient battling cancer. Or a
fisherman braving the waves to provide food for his family.

To Peter Geach (1956), courage is what is constantly needed in the ordinary course of life
because the human body is vulnerable to risk. After all, belligerence in battle does not
automatically equate to virtue. Thus, a solider, no matter how courageous, is never virtuous
if he fights for an unworthy cause. Illustrative of this are Schutzstaffel (SS) army units that
carried out orders in the name of a wicked ideology (Nazism).

PHYSICAL AND MORAL COURAGE

Physical courage is the enactment of virtue through actual activity. Conversely, moral
courage is never always demonstrated on a strictly physical level. Instead, moral courage
engages in such acts serves mainly to further typify the virtues one lives by.

Champion boxer Muhammad Ali known for his physical courage as an athlete, was stripped
of his heavyweight title in 1967 due to his refusal to be drafted in Vietnam and
subsequently fight in what he believes to be an ideologically detestable war. His activism,
an offshoot of his perceived moral courage, has cost him his career during this period.

But moral courage is not only exclusive to larger-than-life figures of history like Ali, for
ordinary people can also demonstrate it in equally ordinary scenarios across different
settings. When the world entered the 21st century, courage as manifest virtue began to
steadily depart from the trappings of war (where true courage can be found, according to
Aristotle) and into the struggles of everyday life. Suddenly, everyone can be actors in their
own moral dramas.

QUESTION: What are the pros and cons of courage as a virtue?

MORAL COURAGE: DETERMINANTS

Bystander Effect (or “Bystander Apathy”)
-revealed that people respond to emergency situations, where victims’ safety are much
evidently at stake, quicker and with little regard for the bystander effect compared to
ordinary helping situations In short, moral courage is rather easy to arouse in truly dire
scenarios, thus removing the “Bystander Effect” as a genuine determinant.


MOOD
-It is said that people are more likely to help others if they are in a positive mood, because
doing so is seen as a factor in prolonging it.

Mood also plays an important role on whether or not a person chooses to demonstrate
helping behavior. Furthermore, those in a neutral to negative mood state were also seen to
augment their prosocial behavior because it is believed to counter a bad mood. It was
subsequently revealed that neither of the three mood states (positive, negative, neutral)
affects one’s capacity for moral courage in any way, as it varies depending on the situation

MORAL COURAGE: FOSTERING FACTORS

1. SOCIAL NORMS: predominantly the most salient prosocial ones, in encouraging
morally courageous acts.
2. ANGER: Morally courageous acts are often caused by moral outrage, or the kind of
anger provoked by the violation of a certain moral or ethical standard.



MORAL COURAGE: THREE ELEMENTS

The Three Elements of Moral Courage (Kidder, 2006)


THE MORAL IMPERATIVE OF THE WILL

Will is the fortitude it takes for one to act or decide according to a personal set of
principles.

BUT HOW DO THEY RELATE TO MORALITY?

If you are in a diet and you are able to successfully shake off thoughts of having that slice of
pizza you were craving for all week, it can be said that your will is relatively strong. But in
the field of philosophy, it is espoused in ways that outline its relation to reason and
morality.

“Will is the faculty man has in order to act according to a conception of law” -Immanuel
Kant The Critique of Practical Reason

Martin Luther King Jr. has no significant power over the success or failure of the civil rights
movement, but does over the will to lead the cause. In other words, it is through the
motives behind an action that man’s morality can be properly evaluated. Therefore, it is the
initial enactment of his will, not merely “to conform to the law but for the sake of the law”
(Kant & Gregor, 1998), that defines the moral courage of man, not the end result.

To Kant, misfortunes and bad luck may prevent man from attaining his objectives, but the
unconditional goodness of the will (or simply put, “good will”) that guided his actions
remains. Precisely, will must be in the service of duty, and not of any impulse or specific
inclination. Altruism, for example, or the concern for the welfare of others, is never
unconditionally good. Paradoxically, it is not always a sense of moral duty that inspires a
selfless act, as selfish motives also can.

(e.g. the happiness man gets from helping others is not deserved, and therefore not
intrinsically good, unless he possesses good will).

Flawed will is predominantly influenced by the impulses of human nature, making its
freedom non-absolute, especially if compared to that of the MORAL WILL, which is rooted
primarily in duty and reason.

Will is the “key to all existence”. The will is the inner nature of being but visibly expressed
through and by the human body, which in itself is an idea. Thus, existence is will
materialized, capable of generating all that is desirable and otherwise in this world. -Arthur
Schopenhauer

But unlike Kant, Schopenhauer has a rather pessimistic view of will. Because man is
subservient to it, he is coerced into pursuing numerous goals that, as he will later on find
out, provide only fleeting, almost illusory, contentment.

Will as guided by intellect, when desired, can be labeled as the appetite for reason.

Will as guided by intellect, when desired, can be labeled as the appetite for reason. -Thomas
Aquinas (Philosopher and Theologian)

For Royce, consciousness is where knowing begins, which itself is an act of will. He further
added that the highest form of good can only be attained if a person confers value and
loyalty to a cause, even if he/she will not actually benefit from it. For him, Will in and of
itself, without relation to intellect, is what ultimately guides man. -Josiah Royce (Idealist)

SUMMARY

In this lesson, the important role sentiment plays (as postulated by David Hume) in making
moral valuations was discussed, and so were those of impartiality and will (as established
by Immanuel Kant, among others). Michael Davis’ seven-step moral reasoning model was
also outlined, as well as the moral and physical dimensions of courage

 WORKSHEET 4.1


1. What are the advantages and disadvantages when a person makes moral valuations
based solely on feelings?






2. What are the advantages and disadvantages when a person makes moral valuations
based solely on impartiality?






3. How do you think can moral impartiality help in resolving societal issues such as
racism and sexism?






4. What other steps do you think can be added to Michael Davis’ Seven-Step Guide to
Moral Reasoning? Justify.






5. What are the pros and cons or courage as a virtue? Explain each.




6. Which do you think is more important between moral courage and physical
courage? Why?






7. Why do you think some people are more courageous than others?






8. How does will, as a component of morality, stack up compared to feelings and
impartiality?





9. Narrate your ‘kwento ng kabutihan’ for the past week.