SENTIMENT &

MORAL-DECISION
-MAKING
• David Hume- morality is based not on reason but on
emotions
• His notion of ethical thought is based heavily on the
empiricist theory of the mind, and thus can be
distilled through the four theses that he has posited
• 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 not 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; and
• 4. While some virtues and vices are natural, others,
• 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
• 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
 • For Immanuel 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.
QUESTION:
•What are the advantages
and disadvantages when a
person makes moral
valuations based solely on
feelings?
REASON & IMPARTIALITY
• 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
• 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,
THE MORAL IMPETUS OF IMPARTIALITY
• IMPARTIALITY- simply states that no one is above or beneath any
standard when making moral valuations.
• Ex. Now, suppose a man owns an apartment building and it only has
one available unit left. Suddenly, a couple came in to inquire, and
they seem eager to rent. After the man’s brief explanation on the
monthly rate, the couple took out some cash for the initial deposit. A
tenancy deal is about to be struck. A smile crossed the man’s face.
Business is good. But see, there is one thing bothering the man the
entire time he was interacting with the couple: the fact that the
couple are of the same sex. As he is near to closing the deal, the
man saw a heterosexual couple walking towards the building, bags in
hand. Without saying anything, he returned the first couple’s money
and instead handed the keys to the second one. When pressed by
the same-sex couple to explain why the man gave the unit to the
THE SEVEN STEP GUIDE TO MORAL
REASONING (MICHAEL DAVIS)
• 1. STATE THE PROBLEM
Determine the possible moral dilemmas at hand. Is there something about
your judgment and/ or decision that makes you uncomfortable? Is there
any conflict of interest present?
• 2. CHECK THE FACTS
– When we examine a scenario closely, what is initially identified as a
problem or dilemma can surprisingly disappear. Some, on the other
hand, can be amplified or altered radically due to new details that might
come to the light upon closer scrutiny.
• 3. IDENTIFY RELEVANT FACTORS
– Who are the people involve? What laws or professional codes can
possibly apply? Are there practical constraints(e.g. You are a journalist
and you were given 5000 pesos by a politician whom the article you are
• 4. DEVELOP A LIST OF OPTIONS
– Do you have a set of alternatives to the action or decision
(in relation to a given scenario) in mind? Be creative and
develop a list of other choices. Avoid the binarism of “yes or
no” questions in making moral decisions (such as “Should I
do it or not?”) Identify people you can potentially approach
who may provide fresh perspectives on the situation you are
confronted with.
• 5. TEST THE OPTIONS.
• Michael Davis has included several tests that may
prove to be useful when one is weighing in on his/her
choices and decisions.
• A. HARM TEST- Would less harm be done on other
people when I favor this one decision over the others?
• B. PUBLICITY TEST- Would I be proud of this decision if it makes the
evening news? Would I want my loved ones to know?
• C.DEFENSIBILITY TEST- Would I be able to defend this decision
before the court or a panel of reviewers without appearing self-serving?
• REVERSIBILITY TEST- Would I still prefer my option of choice if it were
to have some adverse effects on me instead of others? Would I still
want it despite the implications?
• COLLEAGUE TEST – How would my profession’s ethics committee see
the option? What would they say?
• 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 BEASED ON THE
ABOVEMENTIONED STEPS
• REVIEW STEPS 1-6
QUESTION:
WHAT OTHER STEPS DO YOU THINK
CAN BE ADDED TO MICHAEL DAVIS’
SEVEN-STEP GUIDE TO MORAL
REASONING? JUSTIFY
MORAL COURAGE
• “Never , never be afraid to do what’s right
especially if the well-being of a person or
animal is at stake. Society’s punishment are
small compared to the wounds we inflict on
our soul when we look the other way.”
- Martin Luther King Jr.
• VIRTUE, as defined by Aristotle, is a character trait that manifest in the habitual
performance of a set of behavioral cues
• COURAGE DEFINED
• -is one of the many virtues intrinsic to man. As elucidated by Aristotle, courage
is that which sits between the extremes of cowardice and recklessness, the
same way virtue does between excess & deficiency. Cowardice is either retreat
or complete inaction in the face of adversity, while recklessness is inchoate
risk- taking. Additionally, courage resides at the nexus point of danger and
endurance , and can be classified as either physical or moral.
• To Peter Geach (1956), courage is what is constantly needed in the ordinary
course of life because the human body is vulnerable to risk.
• PHYSICAL & MORAL COURAGE
• Physical Courage is the enactment of virtue through actual activity, such as a
police officer in pursuit of a criminal lifeguard saving someone from drowning,
or a boxer taking on a foe twice his size. At times, such an act can be driven by
abstraction, like pride & honor . Though physical courage can be driven by
abstractions, like pride and honor. Though physical courage can be principle-
related, it is not exclusively principle driven
MORAL COURAGE: “DETERMINANTS”
& FACTORS
SUPPOSED DETERMINANTS
• Studies show that individuals tend to inhibit from
helping others if there are people present. This social
psychological phenomenon is popularly known as the
“BYSTANDER EFFECT” or (“Bystander Apathy”).
Though on the contrary, Greitemeyer, Fischer,
Kastenmueller, and Frey (2006) revealed that people
respond to emergency situations, where victims’
safety are much evidently at stake quicker & with little
regard for the bystander effect compared to ordinary
helping situations (i.e. saving a kid’s pet kitten stuck
on a tree). In short, moral courage is rather easy to
• MOOD also plays an important role on whether or not a person chooses to
demonstrate helping behavior. 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.
Furthermore, those in a neutral to negative mood state were also seen to augment
their prosocial behavior because it is believed to encounter a bad mood. It was
subsequently revealed that neither the three mood states (positive, negative,
neutral) affects one’s capacity for moral courage in any way, as it varies depending
on the situation
• FOSTERING FUNCTIONS
• 1. SOCIAL NORMS- predominantly the most salient prosocial ones, in encouraging
morally courageous acts. Anything essentially prosocial can be defines as that w/c
can directly affect others positively. If a person keeps on noticing displays of moral
courage on the streets (such as coming to the aid of bullied racial minorities), there’s
a big chance that he/she might see this as normal practice, w/c may then inspire
him/her to engage in similar prosocial acts in the future.
• 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 In other words,
it is the upsetting feeling one gets at the sight of injustice or inequality. When a
person sees someone beating another to a bloody pulp in some dark alley, his/her
sense of moral courage can be triggered, potentially leading to a morally courageous
act(i.e. calling the police or fending off the attacker.)
QUESTION:

• Why do you think are some people more

courageous than others?
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.
If you are in a diet & 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 & morality.
• KANT’S POSTULATE
As defined by Immanuel Kant in the Critique of Practical Reason, will is the faculty man has in
order to act according to a conception of law. When man behaves in a particular way, his
intended outcomes are often beyond his control. Martin Luther King Jr., then, 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”, that defines the moral courage of man, not the end result.
So Andres Bonifacio, who founded the Katipunan but was subsequently forced out of the
movement and was executed, is no less moral than Emilio Aguinaldo, who succeeded in
establishing the first Philippine republic and negotiating a truce with the Spanish colonial
government. To Kant, misfortunes and bad luck may prevent man from attaining his objectives,
but the unconditional goodness of the will that guided his actions remains
• Precisely, will must be in the service of duty, and not of any
impulse or specific inclination. An Example presented by Kant
is that of two shopkeepers who behaved honestly by not
overcharging a naïve customer, but for different reasons. The
first was out of a concern for other patrons, who might not buy
from the shop anymore if he acted on the contrary, while the
other was purely out of moral duty. Their behavior manifested
similarly, but only the latter has moral dimension, for it was
made possible by a rationally guided will.
• But to clarify , Kant states that the moral function of good will
should not be seen as a primary motivator for humans actions,
be it pleasure or happiness. He further expands on will as
being classified into two: moral & flawed. 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
WILL ACCORDING TO SCHOPENHAUER
• German Philosopher ARTHUR SCHOPENHAUER,
through his four-part work The World as Will &
Representation further expands on the notion of will
as posited by Kant, calling it the “Key to all existence”.
For him, the will is the inner nature of being but visibly
expressed through and by the human body, w/c in
itself is an idea. Thus, existence is will materialized,
capable of generating all that is desirable & otherwise
in this world..
• From Schopenhauer’s vantage, the ultimate reality is
one universal will (similar to that of Kant’s concept of
AQUINAS & ROYCE
• Thomas Aquinas specifically suggest that will is
guided by intellect, when desired, can be labeled as
the appetite for reason
• But for idealist Josiah Royce, consciousness is where
knowing begins, w/c itself is an act of will. He further
added that the highest form of good can only be
attained if a person confers value & loyalty to a cause,
even if he/she will not actually benefit from it. Royce,
ethical system thus puts stress on how will in and of
itself, without relation to intellect, is what ultimately
guides man.
KEYWORDS

• MORAL VALUATION- an estimation of assessment of something, usually of a

situation of relative ethical weigh that eventually leads to a decision.
• PRACTICALLY WISEMAN- a man who applies phronesis, or practical
wisdom(or the ability to do the right thing, at the right time, for the right
reason), in his everyday life/
• TELOS- an Aristotelian concept that tells of a man’s ultimate goals or
objectives in doing something
• COGNITIVE DISSONANCE- the discomfort one feels when confronted with
contradictory ideas.