Chapter 4 Lesson 1 Ethical Requirements

Based on Hare’s view, to prescribe acting in accordance with a universal moral principle from which, in
conjunction be acting in accordance with a universal principle is to determine whether one would
actually choose to perform that action if one knew that one would have to play, in a series of possible
worlds otherwise identical to the actual world, the role of each person (including oneself) who would be
affected. Moreover, it is not enough that one simply imagines oneself, with one’s own interests, in the
place of those other persons – rather, one must imagine oneself as being in their place while having, in
turn, their interests and desires.

Reason and Impartiality

The ultimate basis for ethics is clear: Human behavior has consequences for the welfare of others. We
are capable of acting toward others in such a way as to increase or decrease the quality of their lives.
We are capable of helping or harming. What is more, we are theoretically capable of understanding
when we are doing the one and when the other. This is so because we have the capacity to put
ourselves imaginatively in the place of others and recognize how we would be affected if someone were
to act toward us as we are acting toward others. It is said that reason gives rise to ethical discourse and
healthy debate and engagement and if this is true, the question must be asked: Have we lost all reason
that we can resort to insults, that we fail to engage one another in a construct and thoughtful way, even
as we differ ideologically and politically?

It is said that “reason requires impartiality and this statement has serious implications for truthfulness
and reason.

Reason and impartiality are not absolute to any particular group of people, while morality is absolute.
Whatever is considered wrong morally within a certain group of people cannot be debated through
reason. Morality decides the outcome first and then employs reason to justify it. For impartiality,
fairness is given more importance where people are supposed to be treated equally before the law.
While morality may apply generally to a particular group of people, the same cannot be said of reason
and impartiality because the two take a more individualized approach. These are however important
because they help in understanding the moral perception, for example impartiality introduces an aspect
of treating people the same, which is a moral issue

What is Reason?

Reason is the capacity for consciously making sense of things, establishing and verifying facts, applying
logic, and changing or justifying practices, institutions, and beliefs based on new or existing information
(Kompridis, 2000). It is closely associated with such characteristically human activities as philosophy,
science, language, mathematics, and art and is normally considered to be a distinguishing ability
possessed by humans. Reason, or an aspect of it, is sometimes referred to as rationality
Reasoning is associated with thinking, cognition, and intellect. The philosophical field of logic studies
ways in which humans reason formally through argument (Hintikka, 2013). Reason is a declaration made
to explain or justify action, decision, or conviction

The proper role of ethical reasoning is to highlight acts of two kinds: those which enhance the well-being
of others, that warrant our praise and those that harm or diminish the well-being of others and thus
warrant our criticism Developing one’s ethical reasoning abilities is crucial because there is in human
nature a strong tendency toward egotism, prejudice, self-justification, and self deception. These
tendencies are exacerbated by powerful sociocentric cultural influences that shape our lives- not least of
which is the mass media. These tendencies can be actively opposed only through the systematic
cultivation of fair mindedness, honesty, integrity, self-knowledge, and deep concern for the welfare of
others. We can never eliminate our egocentric tendencies absolutely and finally But we can actively fight
them as we learn to develop as ethical persons

Reasons have everything to do with ethics: If you have no good reasons for an act or a belief, then you
can’t have thought it through very well and maybe you shouldn’t be doing it or believing it at all, It’s
quite scary to think that there are people out there who are voting protesting, financing causes, or
running campaigns without any clear idea of why they are doing it. Each and every one of us should be
clear about our reasons for our values, beliefs, and behaviors, and we should each be able to give a
reasoned account of them to others

If someone asks you why you believe or act as you do, don’t just say, “Because I believe (or act) that
way. Give them a reason why. But before you give a reason why, ask yourself why-and keep on asking
yourself why. Only then will your life become meaningful to you.

Giving reasons for our actions is important socially, too. It either connects us to others or divides us from
them. So much of our social life depends on a shared understanding of what’s true, right, and
appropriate. When this understanding breaks down, the only way to restore it is by asking the reason
why we disagree with one another.

Predicting Consequences

Moral reasoning involves predicting the consequences of an action before we act. There are always
consequences when we take the action we think is right, and when we try to be good persons, and
usually these include unintended as well as intended outcomes.

When the likely beneficial outcomes of acting on an ethical presumption seem to outweigh the likely
adverse outcomes, then predicting consequences confirms our presumption
But when we predict that the adverse consequences will outweigh the beneficial consequences, even
when we are obeying an ethical rule or following an inspiring story, then we should consider whether to
make an exception to the rule or to look to a different story for guidance.

We must remember, however, that before we act we can never know for certain what the
consequences will be. Therefore, we should take care in predicting what will result from acting on an
ethical presumption.

In doing ethics, we look at rules (about duty and rights) and at stories (about character and
relationships) to construct a presumption, and then test this presumption by predicting what we do
know (and don’t know about the likely consequences of acting on it.

Impartiality

Impartiality also called evenhandedness or fair-mindedness is a principle of justice holding that decisions
should be based on objective criteria, rather than on the basis of bias, prejudice, or preferring the
benefit to one person over another for improper reasons (Wikipedia).

Someone who is impartial is not directly involved in a particular situation. And is, therefore, able to give
a fair opinion or decision about it. We might be impartial because this promotes our desire to be fair or
because it promotes our well-being and self-respect and earns us social approval. Or we might appeal to
the social good, or to the inherent badness of violating impartiality

Impartiality makes no discrimination as to nationality, race, religious beliefs class or political opinions. It
endeavors to relieve the suffering of individuals being guided solely by their needs, and to give priority
to the most urgent cases of distress

Consequences of the Fundamental Principle of Impartiality

The consequences of the principle of Impartiality are as follows

It establishes one of its key values non-discrimination, which is one of the most important elements of
all aspects of the protection of the human being human rights law, humanitarian law, refugee law

Although the need to enjoy the confidence of all is mentioned about the principle of Neutrality, this also
applies to the principle of Impartiality. Only an impartial action can give the image of an organization
that can be trusted by people to be assisted or protected. Therefore, systems have to be put in place to
ensure that the people benefitting from the action of the Red Cross and Red Crescent are those whose
vulnerability is the highest
Impartiality in its true sense requires that subjective distinctions be set aside. To illustrate the difference
between the two notions: a National Society that refuses to provide its services to a specific group of
people because of their ethnic origin, fails to observe the rule of non-discrimination whereas a National
Society staff member who, in the exercise of his functions favors a friend by giving him better treatment
than that given to others, contravenes the principle of impartiality. Therefore, staff and volunteers
should be trained to ensure that correct behavior becomes almost a reflex

Impartiality is one of the more commonly recognized aspects of the role of the Mediator

This does not mean that the Mediator should somehow become inhuman and not have a feeling of bias
towards one party or another, but that he/she practices in a way that minimizes any manifestation of
this bias

This is an important distinction to make No-one can genuinely claim to be impartial, but he/she can
continually review his/her own feelings and thoughts about someone or a situation in order to
acknowledge this and then monitor, and adjust where necessary, his/her practice as a mediator in the
light of this awareness

Similarly, anyone supporting people in dispute will be more effective it he/she maintain his/her
impartiality in the situation, even if one of the people involved is someone he/she knows.

There can be a temptation to automatically take sides’ when we know someone who is in dispute but
ultimately this often just entrenches that person even more in his/her despair, anger, disillusionment
etc. and can make him/her less likely to be able to resolve it.

Hence, impartiality serves a purpose in supporting conflict resolution whether we are a mediator or not

In mediation and in other conflict resolution support striving for impartiality means that the process of
resolution is untainted by the Mediator’s biases and prejudices, so that the disputants can focus on
resolving their own concerns rather than have to respond to input from the mediator

The mediator creates a channel for communication and not an obstacle to it and remaining impartial
allows for the channel to be as unimpeded as possible. The challenges that mediators face in
maintaining impartiality will be unique to each

Reasons and Impartiality as Requirement of Ethics

In the Euthyphro, Socrates expresses astonishment that a young man would prosecute his own father
for murder. The conventional assumption he seems to be making is that filial relationships impose
special constraints that may override other considerations, even in the gravest matter. For Euthyphro,
by contrast, a murder is a murder. The fact that it was committed by his father has no bearing upon
what he is required to do about it. He must prosecute his father just as he would a stranger

In the dialogue, the issue is quickly dropped, unresolved. This brief passage can serve as an emblem of a
perplexing range of problems that bedevil ethical theory – problems now typically grouped together
under the heading of impartiality. In one way or another, all of these problems concern the way in which
modern moral philosophy seems to force detachment from self-interest, privileged personal
relationships, the demands of the moment, and a fully situated first-person point of view, in favor of
aggregate or common good, equal and universal relationships long-range considerations, and the point
of view of a disinterested, omniscient observer.

There are at least three distinct elements that run through these problems namely:

1. We grant the powerful and persistent force of self-interest in our lives, and assume that morality
must somehow give us reasons for constraining such motives;

2. We grant that rules and principles of conduct will be useless or counter productive in purely local or
short-range terms and assume that morality must give us reasons for acting in principle inspite of it

3. We grant that our favorites and friends have special claims on our attention and assume that morality
must give us reasons for occasionally denying such claims.

In order to provide such reasons, moral theories standardly argue that our selfish, local, and purely
personal interests are morally indistinguishable from

Many others and that reason requires us to treat similar cases similarly. Morality, thus, requires that we
should not play favorites or manipulate rules to our personal advantage, or make ad hoc exceptions for
ourselves In that sense it requires us to be impartial (Becker, 1991).

Reasons and Feelings

Broadly stated ethics is concerned with making sense of intuitions” (Light, et al, 2003) about what is
right and good We do this by reasoning about our feelings. Biologists verify that “Emotion is never truly
divorced from decision making, even when it is channeled aside by an effort of will” (Blakeslee, et al
2007). Physicists now confirm that seeing the world with complete objectivity is not possible, as our
observations affect what we perceive (Werner. 2002).

Moral philosopher Mary Midgley (1983) writes Sensitivity requires rationality to complete it, and vice
versa. There is no siding onto which emotions can be shunted so as not to impinge on thought.” We rely
on our reason to guard against feelings that may reflect a bias, or a sense of inadequacy, or a desire
simply to win an argument, and also to refine and explain a felt conviction that passes the test of critical
reflection and discussion. We rely on feelings to move us to act morally, and to ensure that our
reasoning is not only logical but also humane
Scientific evidence supports this approach to ethics. As children, we manifest empathy before
developing our rational abilities, and there is evidence for the same order of development in the
evolution of the human brain (Carey, 2007) “Empathy is a unique form of intentionality in which we are
directed toward the other’s experience” This involves feeling, at least to some extent what another
person is feeling. “In empathy we experience another human being directly as a person that is, as an
intentional being whose bodily gestures and actions are expressive of his or her experiences or states of
mind” (Thompson, 2007).

Empathy enables us to identify with others, and may generate a perception of the other as a being who
deserves concern and respect.” This does not guarantee ethical conduct, but it makes morality possible.
“Aid to others in need would never be internalized as a duty without the fellow-feeling that drives
people to take an interest in one another. Moral sentiments came first moral principles second” (de
Waal, 2007)

Conscience, at its best, reflects our integration of moral sentiments and principles. We should test our
conscience, however, by explaining to others the reasons for our moral presumptions, and we should
listen carefully to concerns they may have. This is especially important when dealing with ethical issues
among family members or friends, but applies as well to concerns about the environment

Moreover, both our feelings and our reason reflect our participation in a moral community, or more
likely several moral communities children, our moral community is our family, which soon broadens to
include our friends and then is defined by the rules of our school. As adults, our moral community
extends from our family to our friends (at work, in our neighborhood or a support group, and perhaps in
our religious community), to our city, our country, the people of the world whose moral and legal rights
are defined by international law, and perhaps also to a moral community that includes non-human
organisms and ecosystems.

Ethics vs Feelings

Many times, there’s a conflict between what we naturally feel and what is considered to be ethical Our
subconscious reaction to a news event might be hatred, jealousy or other negative feelings, but we
might not be able to morally argue why we feel that way. My guess is that the human race developed
those subconscious reactions as an evolutionary mechanism to survive. Our ancestors wouldn’t have
been able to find and obtain food if they hadn’t fought for it. Arguing about ethics would’ve meant that
you’ll have to stay hungry and die

The problem is most of our feelings in today’s world are unethical, politically incorrect or even outright
harmful. It takes a great deal of effort to retrospect and self-analyze our feelings to judge whether they
are ethical or not.

Let us take a few common examples and see how to tackle those feelings Groupism, Patriotism,
Dunbar’s number, Negative feelings to content on Social Networks

1. Groupism

a. Natural feeling: 1 am part of a group. I am supposed to help this group become better. I am also
supposed to compete with other groups
b. Reasoning: Being part of a herd made it easier for us ancestors to survive in the wild. There were so
many survival benefits that belonging to a group brought. Naturally, our ancestors started developing
good feelings about belonging to a group c. Ethical viewpoint: Help the group. Help other groups too.
There is no compelling reason to compete in today’s times of peace.

2. Patriotism

a. Natural feeling: I was born in a place. I am supposed to help people in the geographical vicinity around
me. There are human-decided borders that define my country. Those outside the border don’t deserve
that much attention as those inside the border do.

b. Reasoning: Patriotism is Groupism in a higher scale. Most borders were drawn for political benefits by
a small group of individual running that country. There have been countless stories of propaganda by
governments to motivate people to join their wars to fight people over borders. We humans tend to
justify these efforts as noble.

c. Ethical viewpoint: Wars are always bad. There is no reason to be proud of your country just because
you were born in it. It is okay to be in your country and help your country because you are used to it. But
it is also okay to move to other countries and help those countries

Dunbar’s number

a. Natural feeling: I cannot maintain more than 150 stable relationships.

b. Reasoning: Our brains have limited capacity and it becomes mentally hard to maintain more
relationships.

c. Ethical viewpoint: Acceding to the Dunbar’s number promotes Groupism. Just as we push ourselves to
become better humans, we should also try to push the Dunbar number limit further. Accepting that all
life forms in this world (and outside the world if life exists) are part of the same group counters the
negative effects of Groupism.

Negative feelings to content on Social Networks

a. Natural feeling: I hate what’s being posted on Facebook. They are just stupid selfies, people gloating
their achievements or just distracting, unproductive content

b. Reasoning Many of us have been taught to compete with others sinor childhood. We tend to compare
ourselves with others.

We don’t like selfies because they are attention seeking and we look down upon those who seek
attention.

Distracting, unproductive content is noise to us and we cannot handle t much noise in our daily life.
c. Ethical viewpoint: We don’t have to compete with our friends We can applaud their life achievements
without comparing our lives with the We don’t have to look down upon those who seek attention.
Comedians’ actors and other entertainers are attention-seeking. But we don’t look down upon them

It is up to us to filter out noise in our lives Social networks aren’t thrusted into our face. We can choose
to stay away from them if they are towy Or even better, adjust the content shown in our feed and tailor
it to cue comfort.

Conclusion

It is easy to give in to our feelings An analogy would be with unhealthy foods It is easy to choose
unhealthy foods because they are tasty and easy to prepare hut we hit the gym, avoid those foods and
exercise because we want to become better individuals Similarly, we can take the ethical route, avoid
negative feelings and exercise those reactions because we want to become better individuals

Steps in Moral Reasoning Model

Ethical reasoning is how to think about issue of right or wrong. Processes of reasoning can be taught,
and the college or university is an appropriate place to teach these processes because often it is taught
no place else, and because it is essential for a successful adulthood. Although parents and especially
religious institutions may teach ethics, they do not always teach ethical reasoning Academy courses are
the logical place to teach the cognitive process of reasoning especially as ethical issues relate to the
content of a particular discipline. No matter how knowledgeable one is about his/her profession, if the
knowledge is not backed by ethical reasoning, long-term success in the career is likely to be severely
compromised

Ethical reasoning is hard because there are so many ways to fail. Ethical behavior is far harder to display
than one would expect simply on the basis of what we learn from our parents, from school, and from
our religious training (Sternberg, 2009). To intervene, individuals must go through a series of steps, and

Unless all of the steps are completed, they are not likely to behave in an ethical way, regardless of the
amount of training they have received in ethics, and regardless of

Their levels of other types of skills. Given the fact that ethical dilemmas may not always be readily
resolved

Through the use of codes of ethics, it might be useful to have a framework in which to analyze and make
ethical decisions. The following ethical decision-making model comes from the work of Corey et. Al.
(1998).

Step 1: Identify the problem. What facts make this

Step 2: Identify the potential issues involved. What level of ethical issues are we dealing with: systemic,
corporate, or individual? Step 3: Review relevant ethical guidelines. Given the facts and the ethical
issues, what alternative actions are possible in this situation?

Step 4: Know relevant laws and regulations. Who will be affected by the

Alternatives and to what degree?

Step 5: Obtain Consultation. Use ethical principles to decide on the best alternative. The ethics of each
of the most plausible alternatives is assessed using ethical principles or rules

Step 6: Consider possible and probable courses of action. Can the best alternative be put into effect?
Having decided on one alternative, we need to see whether there are any practical constraints which
might prevent that alternative from being acted upon

Step 7 List the consequences of the probable courses of action.

Step 8: Decide on what appears to be the best course of action. Implementing the best alternative.
Having selected the best alternative which is not ruled out by practical constraints, we need to decide on
the steps necessary to carry it out.

It is extremely important that you keep your immediate supervisor and all involved parties informed
during this process. After you have made your decision, take some time to reflect on the process and to
review what you have learned with a trusted supervisor or colleague.

The Difference Between Reason and Will

Will, generally, is that faculty of the mind which selects, at the moment of decision, the strongest desire
from among the various desires present. Will does not refer to any particular desire, but rather to the
mechanism for choosing from among one’s desires. Within philosophy the will is important as one of the
distinct parts of the mind – along with reason and understanding. It is considered central to the field of
ethics because of its role in enabling deliberate action
When we become conscious of ourselves, we realize that our essential qualities are endless urging,
craving, striving, wanting, and desiring. These are characteristics of that which we call our will.
Schopenhauer affirmed that we can legitimately think that all other phenomena are also essentially and
basically will. According to him, will “is the innermost essence, the core, of every particular thing and
also of the whole. It appears in every blindly acting force of nature, and also in the deliberate conduct of
man.” Schopenhauer (1998) said that his predecessors mistakenly thought that the will depends on
knowledge. According to him, though, the will is primary and uses knowledge in order to find an object
that will satisfy its craving. That which, in us, we call will is Kant’s “thing in itself”, according to
Schopenhauer.

Schopenhauer’s philosophy holds that all nature, including man, is the expression of an insatiable will to
life. It is through the will that mankind finds all their suffering. Desire for more is what causes this
suffering. He argues that only aesthetic pleasure creates momentary escape from the will.

Since the derivation of actions from laws requires reason, the will is nothing but practical reason. To
explain, the will is guided by reason, where, as determined by reason, action is performed according to
rational requirements, or laws of reason. Reason directs action by “determination of the will”- as long as
the will is guided by reason. Where the will is determined by reason in accordance with which action is
performed, reason is practical, ie. Action-directing. Reason has, in other words, the capacity to direct
action Further, where the will is guided by reason, it is free.

Answer pages 119-120

1.) State the differences of the following items and write your answers on their respective columns:

Reason Feeling Will

2.) What if you have a conflict of interest in your work but it is not in an area critical or central to your
responsibilities. What are you going to do? Example, SolGen Calida's case with his security agency.

3.) Take a look on the ouster of Chief Justice Sereno, is it right to oust Sereno as Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court via Quo Warranto? What do you think would be your feelings if you were Sereno?

1. Generally, it is that faculty of the mind which selects, at the moment of decision. Will
2. Morality, thus, requires that we do not do the following except – impartiality in making
decisions
3. It is the innermost essence, the core, of every particular thing and also of the whole. Will
4. It enables us to identify with others, and may generate a perception of the other as a being who
deserves concern and respect empathy
5. This requires rationality to complete it, and vice versa. Sensitivity
6. When we become conscious of ourselves, we realize that our essential qualities are – all fo the
above
7. Broadly stated, this is "concerned with making sense of intuitions" about what is right and good.
Ethics
8. It is said that reason requires – impartiality
9. These are steps in moral reasoning except none of the above
10. Striving for impartiality means that the process of resolution is untainted by biases and
prejudices