Module 4: The Act-Saint Louis University PDF

Document Code FM-STL-013 Saint Louis University Revision No. 01 School of Teacher Education and Liberal Arts...

Document Code FM-STL-013 Saint Louis University Revision No. 01 School of Teacher Education and Liberal Arts Effectivity June 07, 2021 Page 1 of 35 MODULE 4: The Act Module 4 is devoted to the elaborate consideration of the importance of reason in making moral decisions. While recognizing the significance of feelings or emotions in making decisions, the proper use of reason and our ability to analyze moral situations are given more priority. The module specifically aims to: (1) point out the obstacles in making the right decisions; (2) suggest ways to come up with the right decision; (3) show the role of reason and emotion in moral decisions; (4) present steps in making moral decisions; and (5) argue for the importance of having moral courage and will. Learning Outcomes: At the end of Module 4, you should be able to: 1. elaborate on the significance of emotions and reason in making moral decisions; 2. outline the 7 steps of Scott Rae’s Moral Reasoning Model; 3. apply Scott Rae’s 7-step Moral Reasoning Model in certain moral dilemmas; 4. appraise the significance of having moral courage and will; and evaluate moral situations with impartial eyes. ENGAGE Assess yourself on which you usually rely when making decisions: your heart (feelings) or your mind (reason). Could one be more reliable than the other when making moral decisions? Elaborate your answers by sharing your own experience. Property of and for the exclusive use of SLU. Reproduction, storing in a retrieval system, distributing, uploading or posting online, or transmitting in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise of any part of this document, without the prior written permission of SLU, is strictly prohibited. 1  Document Code FM-STL-013 Saint Louis University Revision No. 01 School of Teacher Education and Liberal Arts Effectivity June 07, 2021 Page 2 of 35 EXPLORE  4.1. a. Feeling and Moral Decision-Making There is always a way to determine what is right from Through this interactive what is not right, to distinguish what is just from what is unjust, lesson, we are to: a) what ought to be done and what ought not to be done, and identify the role and what is ethical from what is unethical. function of feelings and reason responding to In the corporate world, the appropriateness of one’s moral dilemmas; b) action can be decided vis a vis the organization’s vision-mission manifests the functions together with its core values. In religion, what is right is judged of feelings and based on the members’ code, creed, and professed conduct. functions in responding In legal matters, we can know the truth based on what the law to the demands of and jurisprudence say. In culture, what is right is adjudged moral responsibility based on the good custom, beliefs, and practices that members of the said culture claim as acceptable. These claims are debatable since everything in philosophy can be questioned, but our proximate nearness to what is right becomes closer. We must remember, that ethics is not just in words or academic in nature. It also includes our thoughts and how we translate into action what we think and say. Feelings as Instinctive and Trained Response to Moral Dilemmas Feelings are important. It is evidence of our being human. We feel sad upon learning that there are about 50-200 species of plant, insect, bird, and mammal becoming extinct every day or for 350-1,400 in a week, or 1,500-6,000 in a month, and 18,000-73,000 in a year. We feel happy when modern medicine can separate conjoined twins and allow them to have separate lives to live. We are amazed to know that the longest name of a city is Krung Thep Mahanakhon Amon Rattanakosin MahintharaYuthaya Mahadilok Phop Noppharat Ratchathani Burirom Udomratchaniwet Mahasathan Amon Piman and we know this city through its shortened name as Bangkok, Thailand. We wonder if humans have the capacity to create a machine that can convert all human garbage into something useful. If we feel inconvenienced upon knowing the number of animal species getting extinct every day, if we have no reaction to the news of conjoined twins being separated, if we have no amazement over the wonderful inventions and human creations, our humanity is questionable. Emotion results in feeling and this human ability to feel are wonderful. Feeling gives color to our life. It comes as a natural reaction to our encounters with ourselves, others, and anything around us. When we receive high grades as a result of our hard work, we feel Property of and for the exclusive use of SLU. Reproduction, storing in a retrieval system, distributing, uploading or posting online, or transmitting in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise of any part of this document, without the prior written permission of SLU, is strictly prohibited. 2  Document Code FM-STL-013 Saint Louis University Revision No. 01 School of Teacher Education and Liberal Arts Effectivity June 07, 2021 Page 3 of 35 elated and we rejoice. When our grades are low because we take for granted our academics, we feel down and regret our shortcomings. When we see pictures of victims of crimes and violence, such as the carnage of the 44 members of the Special Action Force in Tukanalipao Mamasapano, Maguindanao on January 25, 2015, or the worst media-related violence in the whole world in what is called Maguindanao Massacre which caused the death of 58 people comprising of Esmael Mangudadatu’s family members, civilians and Media people on November 23, 2009, we feel sorry for the victims of these tragedies and feel a wave of burning anger in our hearts. In the same manner, we are moved to act when we see environmental destructions such as the miners from Benguet and the nearby provinces letting go of their chemical wastes down to the lowlands threatening lives and even causing deaths. When we learn that about 350,000 children were getting paralyzed yearly in the 1980s because of polio, we are shocked. But when we learn that in 2017, there were only about 19 serious polio cases were reported, we are elated with the development that we are becoming successful against this human pestilence. In the same manner, we become happy to know that the human race is gaining acceptance for respecting the rights of women and minorities. Recently, Saudi Arabia allowed women to drive, while Egypt came up with laws giving equal rights to inheritance to men and women. In Jordan and Lebanon, laws that set free rapists who marry their victims were repealed. Gender equality is now gaining support worldwide, a good development that tells us to keep hoping for a brighter future. Our emotions which lead to all kinds of feelings, point to our humanity. We cannot imagine what life is like if we do not have feelings at all. It is beyond question that emotion is an important aspect of our humanity. In previous discussions, we mentioned that reason is the basis of decision-making. This means that there is a certain logic in analyzing situations of life, and, in logical interpretation, we avoid fallacies or errors in thinking, wishful actions, invalid claims, and misjudgment in determining rightful actions. In logical thinking, priority is right judgment and proper actions and not based on mere intuitive knowledge and hypothetical or assumptive analysis. In short, a conclusion is achieved by analyzing premises that are logically coherent and valid. Philosophers through the years debate issues and concerns relative to emotion and reason. Traditional understanding emphasized that emotion is inferior to reason. Emotion is said to be fleeting and can be dangerous, while reason is superior and reliable. Conventional thinking states that emotion must be controlled and tamed while reason must be improved and perfected. But in spite of their academic discussions, no consensus yet has been arrived at on the connection between the two. Property of and for the exclusive use of SLU. Reproduction, storing in a retrieval system, distributing, uploading or posting online, or transmitting in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise of any part of this document, without the prior written permission of SLU, is strictly prohibited. 3  Document Code FM-STL-013 Saint Louis University Revision No. 01 School of Teacher Education and Liberal Arts Effectivity June 07, 2021 Page 4 of 35 The debates between and among the philosophers seem legitimate, but we might as well leave them with their mental skirmishes. More practical thinkers would see their effort as an exercise in futility since it will never end. Capturing the connection between emotion and reason in a box may not be, possible, but approaching the problem on the level of our day-to-day experiences can make sense. We should focus instead on what emotion and reason can do to us in our everyday lives. We might also see emotion and reason work together in real life. We might as well focus on the impacts of emotion and reason in our everyday encounters with our fellow human beings, together with the ethical decisions we make when confronted with true- to-life concerns. Again, experience tells us that feeling leads to thinking and will further push us to reflect deeper on what to do and what not to do. Thinking will also trigger what we feel, and this feeling can push us further to think. Even without deep philosophical insights and debates, it is clear that emotion and thinking are interconnected. Experience shows that emotion is connected with thinking. Those who insist that the two are entirely different and independent may be correct, and we do not contradict them. We simply maintain that there is a connection between the two. Our day-to-day experiences tell us that our feeling will usually trigger us to think, and what to think, will usually impact on what we feel. Our emotion that comes in terms of what we feel serve as a triggering device to make us think. When we learn, for example, that our sickly brother is bullied in school, we react and feel bad about it. We may experience anger and shed tears as we pity our brother. This natural reaction will push us to think. It will trigger our minds to think about what must be done. We may think of confronting the bullies themselves. We may also think of reporting it to the school authorities or simply think of letting it go since we do not want further trouble. Here is another example to illustrate that feeling can trigger us to think. When a gentleman sees someone attractive, there comes in him the natural feeling of admiration. This feeling of admiration and eventually attraction will ignite him to think about what to do. His feelings will push him to come up with a plan and eventually to do his first move. He might start asking, “How can I know her name? Is giving her a flower a good move? Will I talk to her personally or through someone else?” What we think can also result in what we feel. When we think of going to college and pursuing medicine, we may feel depressed upon realizing that the tuition fees and other fees in medical schools are too high. But this depression will turn into hope and happiness if we found that there are people willing to help determined students pursue their goals. Property of and for the exclusive use of SLU. Reproduction, storing in a retrieval system, distributing, uploading or posting online, or transmitting in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise of any part of this document, without the prior written permission of SLU, is strictly prohibited. 4  Document Code FM-STL-013 Saint Louis University Revision No. 01 School of Teacher Education and Liberal Arts Effectivity June 07, 2021 Page 5 of 35 Reason and Impartiality as Minimum Requirements of Ethics Plato told a story about Socrates, who encounters a Through this interactive young man named Euthyphro outside the court of Athens. lesson, we are to: a) Socrates was amazed upon learning that Euthyphro is there in define what reason and court because he will prosecute his own father for murder. impartiality are in Everybody thought that a blood relationship will override any relation to ethics; b) conflict that involves a family member. But the contrast is true recall immediate in the case of Euthyphro. For this young man, a crime is a positive responses to crime, and so with murder. Anyone who commits murder must moral dilemmas; and, c) be prosecuted, even if the perpetrator is one’s own father. manifest well rounded The narrative tells that an impartial ethical stand never responses to moral takes a personal stand since it only pursues what is true and dilemmas through just. Impartiality neither plays favorites nor caters to some healthy interplay people’s needs by giving in to their demands while denying between reason and feelings others from enjoying the same because of personal preferences. Impartiality tells us never to manipulate rules, power, and favor to achieve unjust advantage for ourselves and those we favor. The concern about impartiality arises because of our human nature of self- preservation. Human beings want to protect their own life, liberty, and property together with the interest of those who are dear to them. With this premise, judges, elders, and leaders acting as decision-makers must remain impartial at all times. Impartiality is often understood as fair-mindedness or being objective. It rules against rendering decisions based on bias, prejudice, and self-serving interest. Ethical decisions must be just, and any decision is just if it is impartial. Impartiality is often equated with fair-mindedness. One who is impartial is not biased, free from prejudice, and allows objectivity to rule at all times. Impartiality is a necessary element in any judicial system. Judges made a sworn statement before their assumption to the office to observe impartiality in the performance of their duty. This, however, is easier said than done based on what we observe every day. Our day-to-day experiences tell us that impartiality is not a simple concept to observe. In the celebrated quo warranto case filed against Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, the eight (8) justices who voted for her removal claim impartiality in their decision. In fact, they invoked the Philippine Constitution as their objective basis in arriving at their decision. On the other hand, those who question the removal of the Chief Justice claim that the 8 justices are biased and were never impartial. They also invoked the Constitution to point out the error and partiality of the 8 Supreme Court Justices. Property of and for the exclusive use of SLU. Reproduction, storing in a retrieval system, distributing, uploading or posting online, or transmitting in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise of any part of this document, without the prior written permission of SLU, is strictly prohibited. 5  Document Code FM-STL-013 Saint Louis University Revision No. 01 School of Teacher Education and Liberal Arts Effectivity June 07, 2021 Page 6 of 35 Aside from the difficulties encountered in the actual application of impartiality, several philosophers have both complementary and conflicting ideas on what impartiality is. We need then to clarify the same for purposes of relating it with sound ethical decision making. Mohism, an influential philosophical, social, and religious movement that flourished in the Warring States in ancient China within 479–221 B.C.E., promoted “impartial care.” Mohists emphasize that every person should equally care for everyone. Only when a person does not discriminate against anyone that he/she becomes truly righteous. A benevolent person must promote what is universally good for all and refrain from committing societal evil actions. Adam Smith (1723-1790) He was a Scottish philosopher in the 18 th century who came up with a moral point of view popularly known as the “Impartial Spectator.” He arrived at this point of view to highlight how a person can objectively make a judgment on a person’s behavior and actions. To be an “impartial spectator” is to empathize with the person whose behaviors and actions are subject to our judgment. We must imagine ourselves in the circumstance of the person we should judge. Our approval or non-approval of a person’s behavior depends on the decision we make if we are involved in his/her situation. If we were in the person’s situation and we performed the same action just as the person did, the same is acceptable. If we did otherwise because we claim that this behavior or action is wrong, then, the behavior or action is not acceptable. We have the tendency to sustain and defend our ideas when they conflict with other people’s ideas. Adam Smith proposes a solution by saying that “we need to move beyond “literal impartial spectator” to reach some ideal by which we can judge our actions and that of others. His work is an honest attempt to lead people to become impartial and objective in dealing with ethical concerns. 4.2. Scott Rae’s 7-Step Moral Reasoning Model The previous topic dealt with the significance of being impartial and striking a balance between using one’s feelings and reasoning when it comes to moral decision- making. One does not only make a decision in a moral dilemma (or in any situation for that matter) by simply relying on one’s gut-feeling; nor should one only be constantly logical devoid of any emotional consideration in making moral decisions. Nevertheless, it is necessary to exercise careful thinking when it comes to moral analysis, evaluation, and decision-making: mindful of the persons involved, the act itself, the applicable principles, and the overall context of the situation in which any moral decision is to be made. Scott Rae, in his book, Moral Choices (2018), proposed a moral reasoning model that could be used as a guide in making moral decisions. Rae’s moral reasoning model does not guide one to an absolutely correct or “right” answer or decision to a moral dilemma; rather, his Property of and for the exclusive use of SLU. Reproduction, storing in a retrieval system, distributing, uploading or posting online, or transmitting in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise of any part of this document, without the prior written permission of SLU, is strictly prohibited. 6  Document Code FM-STL-013 Saint Louis University Revision No. 01 School of Teacher Education and Liberal Arts Effectivity June 07, 2021 Page 7 of 35 model may guide an individual to ask the right questions to ethical deliberation (Rae, 2018). Scott Rae’s model for moral reasoning presents a 7-step approach to moral analyses and evaluation. It is oriented towards virtues and principles with consideration of consequences as a supporting role (Rae 2018). The 7-step model is as follows: 1. Gather the Facts It is essential that in moral decision-making, one has to know the general facts of the moral situation, before coming up with a moral analysis, more so, a decision or an evaluation. The simplest way of clarifying an ethical dilemma is to make sure the facts are clear. Ask: Do you have all the facts that are necessary to make a good decision? What do we know? What do we need to know? In this light, it might become clear that the dilemma is not ethical but about communication or strategy (Rae, 2018). 2. Determine the ethical issues After having identified the facts and overall context of the moral situation, the ethical issue/s involved in the situation must be clearly stated to specify what issue one has to make a decision to. This section must clearly state the major moral dilemma involved in the case. Ethical interests are stated in terms of legitimate competing interests or goods. The competing interests are what create the dilemma. Moral values and virtues must support competing interests in order for an ethical dilemma to exist. If you cannot identify the underlying values/virtues, you do not have an ethical dilemma. Often people hold these positions strongly and with passion because of the value/ virtue beneath them (Rae 2018). 3. Determine what virtues / principles have a bearing on the case Applicable ethical values and principles relevant to the case must be identified and briefly explained to justify how such principles could be used in coming up with a decision concerning the moral dilemma later on. In addition, the sources of these principles must be acknowledged likewise. These values and principles could come from: (1) established philosophical ethical principles; (2) socio-cultural norms; (3) socio-political norms and laws; (4) religious traditions; and others. In an ethical dilemma, certain values and principles are central to the competing positions. Identify these. Determine if some should be given more weight than others. Ask what the source for the principle is - constitution, culture, natural law, religious tradition... These supplement biblical principles (Rae 2018). Property of and for the exclusive use of SLU. Reproduction, storing in a retrieval system, distributing, uploading or posting online, or transmitting in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise of any part of this document, without the prior written permission of SLU, is strictly prohibited. 7  Document Code FM-STL-013 Saint Louis University Revision No. 01 School of Teacher Education and Liberal Arts Effectivity June 07, 2021 Page 8 of 35 4. List the alternatives After having identified relevant values, virtues, and principles involving the moral situation, possible alternative courses of action must then be proposed and briefly explained. These suggested courses of action must then be evaluated based on their applicability, sensibility and practicality before selecting one as the course of action or decision to be made regarding the moral situation. Creatively determine possible courses of action for your dilemma. Some will almost immediately be discarded, but generally, the more you list, the greater potential for coming up with a really good one. It will also help you come up with a broader selection of ideas (Rae 2018). 5. Compare the alternatives with the virtues/principles The initial list of suggested courses of action must then be evaluated from the vantage point of the identified ethical values and principles. This step eliminates alternatives as they are weighed by the moral principles which have a bearing on the case. Potentially the issue will be resolved here as all alternatives except one are eliminated. Here you must satisfy all the relevant virtues and values - so at least some alternatives will be eliminated (even if you still have to go on to step 6). Often, you have to weigh principles and virtues - make sure you have a good reason for each weighting (Rae 2018). 6. Consider the consequences If principles have not yielded a clear decision, consider the consequences of your alternatives. Take the alternatives and work out the positive and negative consequences of each. Estimate how beneficial each positive and negative consequences are – some might have greater weight than others (Rae 2018). Property of and for the exclusive use of SLU. Reproduction, storing in a retrieval system, distributing, uploading or posting online, or transmitting in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise of any part of this document, without the prior written permission of SLU, is strictly prohibited. 8  Document Code FM-STL-013 Saint Louis University Revision No. 01 School of Teacher Education and Liberal Arts Effectivity June 07, 2021 Page 9 of 35 7. Make a decision (including one’s justification for the decision) In understanding the After having analyzed the moral dilemma situation difference between (from steps 1 thru 6), one must now make a reason and will, we are to decision based on what has been previously a) point out the discussed and must clearly justify the decision that significance of knowing has been made. and actually executing good moral decisions; Ethical decisions rarely have pain-free solutions - it might be you have to choose the solution with the least and b) evaluate actual number of problems / painful consequences (Rae 2018). and hypothetical ethical behavior relative to  4.3 Impediments to Ethical Decision Making planning and execution of important ethical There are instances when our reason runs counter decisions; and c) state the with what we do. There are also instances when our will significance of does not jibe with what we know as proper. As a result, maintaining a healthy we sometimes end up consciously doing what we know balance and interaction as wrong and refrain from doing what we know as right. between reason and will. Here are some known hindrances why we fail to execute what is ethical and consciously do what is unethical. This enumeration is not exclusive. There are other hindrances out there that we encounter in our everyday life. You are hereby asked to enumerate more based on your daily experiences. 1. Egocentrism Every person generally focuses on her own thinking and feeling. We experience the world vis a vis our feelings of pains and pleasure, joy and sadness, and what we long for and dislike. Our experience is heavily influenced by how we think and feel, and this thinking and feeling influence a lot of our decision-making. If I am a teacher, it’s very easy to be engrossed with my tasks and needs, and I may not see things from the parents’ and administrators’ points of view. Ethical decision-making needs to see points of view that are opposed to our own. We experience that when we focus on our reasoning and feeling, we will not hear and see what others are saying and doing. When too much focus is given to the self, we fail to see objectively what surrounds us. If we fall into this trap, we lose our objectivity and become one-sided towards our personal concern. Property of and for the exclusive use of SLU. Reproduction, storing in a retrieval system, distributing, uploading or posting online, or transmitting in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise of any part of this document, without the prior written permission of SLU, is strictly prohibited. 9  Document Code FM-STL-013 Saint Louis University Revision No. 01 School of Teacher Education and Liberal Arts Effectivity June 07, 2021 Page 10 of 35 2. Failure to go with our developmental Maturity Our thinking and decision-making capability grow side by side with our age. In the words of Dr. Carlos Medina (1998), “We keep on defining and re-defining our plausibility context.” This means we undergo different stages in our lives. As children, we think, act, and speak like children. Our world is focused on the children’s world characterized by toys, kiddie fun activities, and food. When we become adolescents, we leave our children’s world behind to embrace a new world belonging to young and energetic people. We start to outgrow our love for toys and kiddie stuff. We start to see the worlds using the lens of young people. When we turn into adults, we leave adolescent life behind and become more serious with life. The problem of ethical decision-making crops up if we fail to grow. When we continue to use the pattern in deciding and dealing with our concerns using our younger- day strategies, we will experience a problem. If we deal with an adolescent concern using a child’s reasoning or an adult concern using a child or adolescent perspective, we will encounter problems. 3. Refusal to let go of our wrongful thinking and see things objectively One who says he/she does not believe in hell because he/she’s never been there is a very difficult person to convince. One who says that there can be no global warming because nobody proved that the earth is getting warmer through a scientific instrument all at the same time in global scope is a person not worthy of our time for discussion purposes. If a person refuses to believe, no amount of convincing effort can change her/his mind. If we only base our decision on what we have experienced, our decision can turn faulty because our experience is often times very limited. There are those who create a picture of what the world is through what they virtually hear and see and just use them as bases on what they claim as true. Again, this is very limited because what we hear and see virtually, together with the information, we derive from social media, is oftentimes not so reliable. Moral Courage and Will Even if the person is very intelligent and has a lot of ideas, but s/he lacks the will and power to implement his ideas, then the ideas remain abstract. The will is important to make knowledge possible. This explains why we consider an action to be a human act. Knowledge as awareness or being conscious of one’s actions, including their possible consequences, requires human will so that it becomes palatable. Since the act of knowing is always consciousness of something inevitably linked to the subject or the knower, it is not enough for an individual to know what is good. What counts are his good acts. Hence, an insane person and a three-year-old child are not liable for their actions since they are not capable of acting with proper knowledge. Their actions can never be considered immoral. College students and professionals are expected to be possessors of knowledge; thus, they cannot claim excuses for their immoral actions. They are liable for the consequences of Property of and for the exclusive use of SLU. Reproduction, storing in a retrieval system, distributing, uploading or posting online, or transmitting in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise of any part of this document, without the prior written permission of SLU, is strictly prohibited. 10  Document Code FM-STL-013 Saint Louis University Revision No. 01 School of Teacher Education and Liberal Arts Effectivity June 07, 2021 Page 11 of 35 their actions. According to Aristotle, knowledge is the first element of ethical practice. This knowledge provides a framework for deliberating about the most appropriate technique(s) by which the good can be attained. But, it should be noted that; although, knowledge is a requirement for considering an act to be a human act, being knowledgeable or being aware of what is ethical or moral is not a guarantee that the person is already considered as an ethical or moral person. The Freedom of the Will, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, this is the power which human beings have in determining their actions according to the judgment of their reasons. This always involves a choice or an option of whether to do or not to do a certain action. Without this freedom of choice, then responsibility and/or liability on the part of the individual would be meaningless. Hence, insane people who have no control of their minds and children who have no idea of what they are doing or are not free to do or not to do, are not responsible for their actions. On the other hand, matured people, college students and professionals are expected to be free from doing or not doing; thus, they are responsible or liable for their actions. To develop the will, voluntariness is required which is an act of consenting or accepting a certain action whether it is done whole-heartedly, half-heartedly, or non- heartedly. According to Aristotle, the moral evaluation of an action presupposes the attribution of responsibility to a human agent; thus, responsible action must be undertaken voluntarily (Nicomachean Ethics III). It is then important to sharpen the “will” so that that we can become consistent in doing the right and the good. EXPLAIN Watch Alex Gendler’s presentation of Plato’s Allegory of the Cave here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RWOpQXTltA A presentation and discussion of the Allegory of the Cave in Filipino version can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6hok2YmrIk Property of and for the exclusive use of SLU. Reproduction, storing in a retrieval system, distributing, uploading or posting online, or transmitting in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise of any part of this document, without the prior written permission of SLU, is strictly prohibited. 11  Document Code FM-STL-013 Saint Louis University Revision No. 01 School of Teacher Education and Liberal Arts Effectivity June 07, 2021 Page 12 of 35 ELABORATE How were the Impediments to Ethical Decision-making portrayed in Plato’s Allegory of the Cave? What specific character or objects in the allegory correspond to the specific impediment to ethical decision-making? EVALUATE *** The graded assignments for Modules 4,5 and 6 are all integrated into the following summative assessments: (1) Midterm Integrated Quiz (2) Midterm Integrated Assignment Your course facilitator will give the instructions in class. References Aquinas, Thomas (1966). On law, eternal law and natural law. Summa Theologiae, vol. 28, Blackfriars in conjunction with McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, pp. 5-97 Aristotle, (1983) Book I-III. Nicomachean ethics. Trans. Martin Oswald. Indianapolis: Bobbs- Merrill Education Publishing. Baybay, A. (2011). Rape cases prevalent: ‘Shameful crimes’ against children up in Mt Province. Property of and for the exclusive use of SLU. Reproduction, storing in a retrieval system, distributing, uploading or posting online, or transmitting in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise of any part of this document, without the prior written permission of SLU, is strictly prohibited. 12  Document Code FM-STL-013 Saint Louis University Revision No. 01 School of Teacher Education and Liberal Arts Effectivity June 07, 2021 Page 13 of 35 Boyle, Joseph M. Jr., "Toward Understanding the Principle of Double Effect," Ethics, 90 (1980), 527-538 Cahill, L.S. "Teleology, Utilitarianism, and Christian Ethics," Theological Studies 42:4 (Dec. 1981) 601–629. Grisez, Germain. (1983). Christian Moral Principles, 1, Franciscan Herald Press Gualdo, R.S., Placido, D and Dagwasi, C. (2012). Ethics: Basic Concepts and Contemporary Moral Issues. Malabon City: Mutya Publishing House, Inc. Gula, Richard M., S.S., (1989). Reason Informed by Faith Foundations of Catholic Morality, New York, Paulist Press. Pasco, M.O.D, Suarez, V.F and Rodriguez, A.M.G. (2018). Ethics. Quezon City: C & E Publishing, Inc. Rachels, J. (2013). The Elements of Moral Philosophy. New York: McGraw Hill. Rae, Scott B. (2018). Moral choices: An introduction to Ethics. 4 th Zondervan. Smith, Janet E. Humane Vitae: A Generation Later. Catholic University of America Press. 1991 ______"Veritatis Splendor," Proportionalism, and Contraception," Irish Theological Quarterly 63: 4 (1998) 307-26. ______ "Moral Terminology and Proportionalism," in Recovering Nature: Essays in Natural Philosophy, Ethics, and Metaphysics in Honor of Ralph McInerny ed. by Thomas Hibbs and John O'Callaghan (Notre Dame Press, 1999) 127-46 Electronic Sources: http://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and- maps/proportionality-principle http://www.spectacle.org/0806/proportionality.html https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51759938_The_principle_of_proportionality_re visited_Interpretations_and_applications http://www.thefreedictionary.com/proportionality http://icucourses.com/pages/002-05-proportionalism-and-biologism http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/zim/zim_195proportionalism.html Property of and for the exclusive use of SLU. Reproduction, storing in a retrieval system, distributing, uploading or posting online, or transmitting in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise of any part of this document, without the prior written permission of SLU, is strictly prohibited. 13  Document Code FM-STL-013 Saint Louis University Revision No. 01 School of Teacher Education and Liberal Arts Effectivity June 07, 2021 Page 14 of 35 MODULE 5: Ethical Framework: Utilitarianism/Consequentialism Module 5 presents the ethical framework of Consequentialism. Although Ethical Egoism and Altruism are presented here, the bulk of the discussion is on the Utilitarianism of John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham. This module aims to: (1) show how to use Utilitarianism as a framework in analysing one’s moral experiences; (2) examine some of the strengths and weaknesses of Utilitarianism. Learning Outcomes: At the end of Module 5, you should be able to: 1. differentiate Ethical Egoism from Ethical Altruism; 2. trace the development of Utilitarianism from the early Hedonism; 3. justify our present quarantine protocols in the country using Bentham’s Felicific Calculus; and 4. evaluate the present education system which is Distance Learning Education (DLE) thru the lens of J.S. Mill. ENGAGE Given the dilemma between your individual happiness and the happiness of the majority, which one will you choose? Why? Property of and for the exclusive use of SLU. Reproduction, storing in a retrieval system, distributing, uploading or posting online, or transmitting in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise of any part of this document, without the prior written permission of SLU, is strictly prohibited. 14  Document Code FM-STL-013 Saint Louis University Revision No. 01 School of Teacher Education and Liberal Arts Effectivity June 07, 2021 Page 15 of 35 EXPLORE  Utilitarianism/Consequentialism Also known as Consequentialism, utilitarianism as an ethical principle determines the morality of an act/choice by its end result. Thus, one ought to choose an act that would yield the good results. The goodness or badness of an act is determined by its end or consequence. The working principle here is “utility” or usefulness. The usefulness of an act is determined by its consequences. It is common for us to determine our moral responsibility by weighing the consequences of our actions. According to consequentialist normative theories, correct moral conduct is determined solely by a cost-benefit analysis of an action's consequences. In consequentialism, an action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favorable than unfavorable. Consequentialist normative principles require that we first tally both the good and bad consequences of an action. Second, we then determine whether the total good consequences outweigh the total bad consequences. If the good consequences are greater, then the action is morally proper. If the bad consequences are greater, then the action is morally improper. Consequentialist theories became popular in the 18 th century by philosophers who wanted a quick way to morally assess an action by appealing to experience, rather than by appealing to gut intuitions or long lists of questionable duties. In fact, the most attractive feature of consequentialism is that it appeals to publicly observable consequences of actions. Most versions of consequentialism are more precisely formulated than the general principle above. In particular, competing consequentialist theories specify which consequences for affected groups of people are relevant. Three subdivisions of consequentialism emerge: 1. Ethical Egoism: an action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favorable than unfavorable only to the agent performing the action. There are two kinds of egoism namely, Psychological egoism and ethical egoism. Psychological egoism asserts that action is good since the consequence of the action is beneficial to the person who performs the act. Psychological egoism is a theory of human psychology which asserts that each person does in fact pursue his or her own self-interest alone. It is theory of human nature that every human action is motivated by self-interest. People are incapable of being unselfish because they are so constituted to always look out only for their own self-interest. For example, a mother sends her children to school. Is the act of sending her child to school consummates an altruistic or egoistic act? But what are the consequences if the mother will not send her child to school. The act of not sending the child to school looks like to the disadvantage of her child. But Property of and for the exclusive use of SLU. Reproduction, storing in a retrieval system, distributing, uploading or posting online, or transmitting in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise of any part of this document, without the prior written permission of SLU, is strictly prohibited. 15  Document Code FM-STL-013 Saint Louis University Revision No. 01 School of Teacher Education and Liberal Arts Effectivity June 07, 2021 Page 16 of 35 psychological egoism will evaluate the act of not sending her child to school an act more disadvantageous to the mother because she will not gain anything if her child will be a liability to her and to the family. Further, the mother will be in pain seeing her child a jobless moron or a goblin while other children of the neighborhood are successful honorable members of the society. Thus, the act of sending a child to school is an act for the interest of the mother for the first place. James Rachel (2002) in his book The Elements of Morality cites Thomas Hobbes’s (1588-1679) who affirms that psychological egoism is true. For Hobbes, altruistic act is an illusion because human nature is self-interested or human acts are dictated by human desires. In his thesis, people do charitable works because in the first place they will get recognition or receive the reward of heavenly bliss. We will always do an action because it makes us feel good. Hence, people sometimes seem to act altruistically, but it is not hard to discover that the ‘unselfish’ behavior is actually connected to some benefit for the person who does it. Further, because of pity, man can do altruistic acts. However, for Hobbes, pitiful acts are demonstration of one’s power over the weak. Hobbesian man is not a God-seeker but a power-seeker. Man is engaged in an endless pursuit of power which ends only in death. So, by nature, men seek to possess and enjoy power. What is the importance of this? Why do men seek power? The primary reason is to ensure the preservation of their lives. Power is the tool used by men to protect their selfish interests, the most important of which is to preserve their own lives. Psychological Egoism claims psychological altruism is impossible. People can act to benefit the interests of others but only when there is something in it for themselves; that they will get something out of it for themselves is the sole reason they benefit others. Accordingly, people are never even partially motivated to help others for their own sake. In the end, people care nothing for others; they care only about themselves. People can’t care for others for their own sake. The other kind of egoism is Ethical Egoism. James Rachels (2002) explains that Ethical Egoism is the radical idea that the principle of self-interest accounts for all of one’s moral obligations. Sometimes one’s interests may happen to coincide with the interests of others—in that by helping oneself, one will coincidentally help them, too. The benefit to others is not what makes an action right, however. An action is right only insofar as it is to one’s own ‘advantage.’ According to ethical egoism, however, we have no duties to others; in fact, each person ought to pursue his or her own selfish interests exclusively. A person ought to do what really is in his or her best interests, over the long run. According to Ayn Rand (1905-1982), altruism leads to a denial of the value of the individual (and his projects and goods). Rand argues that if a man accepts the ethics of altruism, his first concern is not how to live his life, but how to sacrifice it. Each person has one life to live, but altruism rejects the value of the individual, whereas ethical egoism views the individual’s life as having supreme value, then ethical egoism is the moral philosophy we ought to accept. Property of and for the exclusive use of SLU. Reproduction, storing in a retrieval system, distributing, uploading or posting online, or transmitting in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise of any part of this document, without the prior written permission of SLU, is strictly prohibited. 16  Document Code FM-STL-013 Saint Louis University Revision No. 01 School of Teacher Education and Liberal Arts Effectivity June 07, 2021 Page 17 of 35 Ethical Egoism is a consequentialist ethical theory that contends that we act morally when we act in a way that promises our own best long-term interests. Ethics is concerned on personal needs which are relatively different from any other persons. 2. Ethical Altruism: an action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favorable than unfavorable to everyone except the agent. 3. Utilitarianism: an action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favorable than unfavorable to everyone. All three of these theories focus on the consequences of actions for different groups of people. But like all normative theories, the above three theories are rivals of each other. They also yield to different conclusions. Utilitarianism developed in England in the 18 th and 19th centuries. Its main proponents were Jeremy Bentham (1748 – 1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806 – 1873). The philosophy of utilitarianism is anchored on the doctrine that “the only motives of human actions are pleasure and pain, the former prompting us to perform an act, the latter compelling us to avoid an action.” A utilitarian’s only motive of action is pain and pleasure, “seek good and avoid pain.” There are two kinds of utilitarianism. First, act utilitarianism is the position that an action is moral if it produces the greatest happiness for the most people. Second, rule utilitarianism is the ethical position that we should act so that the rule governing our actions produce the greatest happiness for the most people. JEREMY BENTHAM: For Bentham, a person is selfish Motto of Utilitarianism: and acts to fulfill his/her happiness. Man acts to gain “Greatest happiness for the pleasure or to avoid pain. Man is selfish and will not act greatest number of people.” unless to procure his own pleasure. Pleasure is equated with happiness and the first principle of ethics is the right and desirable goal of human action as happiness, that is, pleasure and avoidance of pain. It, therefore, follows that the rightness or wrongness of an action has to be judged by its consequences and by the ability of the act to produce pleasure or remove pain. An action that produces a mixture of pleasure and pain has to be judged according to the quantity of pleasure or pain. Whichever is greater will determine moral character of the action. He calls the property of any act that produces pleasure or happiness “utility”, hence, utilitarianism. In developing his calculus, Bentham distinguishes act utilitarianism from rule utilitarianism. Jeremy Bentham presented one of the earliest fully developed systems of utilitarianism. Two features of his theory are noteworthy. First, Bentham proposed that we tally the consequences of each action we perform and thereby determine on a case by case basis whether an action is morally right or wrong. This aspect of Bentham’s theory is known as act-utilitarianism. Second, Bentham also proposed that we tally the pleasure Property of and for the exclusive use of SLU. Reproduction, storing in a retrieval system, distributing, uploading or posting online, or transmitting in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise of any part of this document, without the prior written permission of SLU, is strictly prohibited. 17  Document Code FM-STL-013 Saint Louis University Revision No. 01 School of Teacher Education and Liberal Arts Effectivity June 07, 2021 Page 18 of 35 and pain which results from our actions. For Bentham, pleasure and pain are the only consequences that matter in determining whether our conduct is moral. This aspect of Bentham’s theory is known as hedonistic utilitarianism. Critics point out limitations in both of these aspects. First criticism, according to act-utilitarianism, it would be morally wrong to waste time on leisure activities such as watching television, since our time could be spent in ways that produced a greater social benefit, such as charity work. But prohibiting leisure activities doesn’t seem reasonable. More significantly, according to act-utilitarianism, specific acts of torture or slavery would be morally permissible if the social benefit of these actions outweighed the dis-benefit. A revised version of utilitarianism called rule-utilitarianism addresses these problems. According to rule-utilitarianism, a behavioral code or rule is morally right if the consequences of adopting that rule are more favorable than unfavorable to everyone. Unlike act utilitarianism, which weighs the consequences of each particular action, rule- utilitarianism offers a litmus test only for the morality of moral rules, such as “stealing is wrong.” Adopting a rule against theft clearly has more favorable consequences than unfavorable consequences for everyone. The same is true for moral rules against lying or murdering. Rule-utilitarianism, then, offers a three-tiered method for judging conduct. A particular action, such as stealing a neighbor’s car, is judged wrong since it violates a moral rule against theft. In turn, the rule against theft is morally binding because adopting this rule produces favorable consequences for everyone. John Stuart Mill’s version of utilitarianism is rule-oriented. Second criticism, according to hedonistic utilitarianism, pleasurable consequences are the only factors that matter, morally speaking. This, though, seems too restrictive since it ignores other morally significant consequences that are not necessarily pleasing or painful. For example, acts which foster loyalty and friendship are valued, yet they are not always pleasing. In response to this problem, G.E. Moore proposed ideal utilitarianism, which involves tallying any consequence that we intuitively recognize as good or bad (and not simply as pleasurable or painful). Also, R.M. Hare proposed preference utilitarianism, which involves tallying any consequence that fulfils our preferences. Hedonism is a philosophy on pleasure. “Hedone” in Greek means “pleasure” as the norm of action. There are two proponents of hedonism namely, Aristippus and Epicurus: For Aristippus, happiness is based on sensual pleasure. Sensual pleasure as motive of life – short term pleasure; motto: “drink and be merry for tomorrow you will die.” For Epicurus, happiness is based on rational pleasure. Intellectual pleasure is longer in effect such as tranquility of the soul like friendship and education. In sum, an act is neither theoretical, legalistic nor experimental; instead, it is only valuable with practical and pleasure value. The counterargument: Practical ethics leads to hedonistic tendencies, relativistic, no universality and can be ambiguous or even antinomian; it lacks rational discernment. Property of and for the exclusive use of SLU. Reproduction, storing in a retrieval system, distributing, uploading or posting online, or transmitting in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise of any part of this document, without the prior written permission of SLU, is strictly prohibited. 18  Document Code FM-STL-013 Saint Louis University Revision No. 01 School of Teacher Education and Liberal Arts Effectivity June 07, 2021 Page 19 of 35 Bentham is credited with founding the doctrine of utilitarianism. In brief, Bentham argued that “action is right if it will produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number.” He believed that by calculating pleasures and pains, one can tell which action is right and which is wrong. In concrete, Bentham’s principle of utility translates itself into what he called a “felicific calculus,” that is, a “happiness calculator, or counter” which is a way of balancing the pros and cons of an envisaged act. Pleasure and pain then is reducible to quantifiable units and the morally good act is the net effect or outcome of maximum pleasure minus minimum pain. The emphasis of J. Bentham is the Quantity of Pleasure which are quantified as follows using the Modified Pleasure Calculus. There are Seven Variables of Pleasure Calculus: 1) Intensity: How intense is the Pleasure and Pain? 2) Duration: How does Pleasure and Pain last? 3) Certainty: What is the probability of Pleasure and Pain to occur? 4) Propinquity: How far off in the future is Pleasure and Pain? 5) Fecundity: What is the probability that Pleasure and Pain will lead to another Pleasure and Pain? 6) Purity: How sure is Pleasure or Pain truly experienced? And 7) Extent: How many persons are affected by Pleasure and Pain? For instance, wealth is proved or quantified by having a huge amount of money. Intelligence is proved or quantified by highest correct answers in an exam. A product is quantified by the largest amount ne can get or accumulate. A quantitative research is proved to be valid by analyzing data through numbers. Application of the felicific calculus. For example, if one is invited to attend a dance party and birthday party that will happen on the same day at the same time, then one may use the felicific calculus to measure the pleasure and pain from the two alternatives of action. The intensity element will ask the variability of the stronger pleasure and the lesser pain one may derive from attending a dance party or a birthday party. Maybe the pleasure that is taken in the birthday party is more intense because the foods prepared by the celebrant, are more delicious; but one should also take into account the side effects of fatty foods into one’s blood pressure. In duration, it asks the length of time of pleasure or pain one may derive from the two alternatives. Maybe, the dance party will have a longer pleasure because it may end in a longer time. But one should also take into account the length of pain one may experience in a dance party because it is possible that nobody will dance with him/her until the end of the program. In certainty or the “sureness” of pleasure, it asks the probability of the occurrence of pleasure and pain because it is not always a good option to choose from uncertainty. The element of propinquity deals with the circumstances of “nearness” and “remoteness” of pleasure and pain to be achieved. This can be illustrated with the case of an employee who is granted a one-month vacation leave on the following fiscal year with the full benefits and complete allowances from the company. If the employee accepts the offer, what month will the s/he spends his/her vacation? What month will s/he select? The rule of Property of and for the exclusive use of SLU. Reproduction, storing in a retrieval system, distributing, uploading or posting online, or transmitting in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise of any part of this document, without the prior written permission of SLU, is strictly prohibited. 19  Document Code FM-STL-013 Saint Louis University Revision No. 01 School of Teacher Education and Liberal Arts Effectivity June 07, 2021 Page 20 of 35 propinquity demands that the opportunity should be taken in the nearest time possible because one may not have the access of pleasure as s/he pleases when other circumstances will occur. Hence, the first month of the year should be selected. This is also true in applying a job. Also, to be considered is fecundity, or the capacity to engender further pleasure; and purity, or the relative absence of any admixture of painful counter effects. Finally, extent, or the number of people affected is considered. Extent brings into balance the happiness of other people involved, hence, the more, the merrier. Further, if more than one of the elements are involved in an action, all the other amounts of pleasure and pain must be accounted for. One is therefore reminded that even a seemingly innocuous act might turn out to have “systemic” effects (to the environment, or to conditions elsewhere, etc.). JOHN STUART MILL: Mill defended the Bentham’s doctrine of “Greatest happiness for greatest number of people.” He accepted the greatest happiness principle of Bentham and agreed with him that man seeks pleasure and avoids pain, and that happiness is the goal of human life, which is identified with pleasure. JS Mill adds a qualitative dimension to Bentham’s purely quantitative one. Mill’s Greatest Happiness Principle is still hedonistic, since it “…holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” Mill asserts that by ‘happiness’ is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by ‘unhappiness,’ pain, and the privation of pleasure.” But Mill’s version modifies Bentham’s utilitarianism. Mill observes that “It is quite compatible with the principle of utility to recognize the fact, that some kinds of pleasure are more desirable and more valuable than others. Of two pleasures, if there be one to which all or almost all who have experience of both give a decided preference, irrespective of any feeling of moral obligation to prefer it, that is the more desirable pleasure.” Mill differentiates the pleasures of animals with those of humans; of those who are intelligent with those who are ignorant: “…it is an unquestionable fact that those who are equally acquainted with, and equally capable of appreciating and enjoying, both, do give a marked preference to the manner of existence which employs the higher faculties [….] Few human creatures would consent to be changed into any of the lower animals, for a promise of the fullest allowance of a beast’s pleasures; no intelligent human being would consent to be a fool, no instructed person would be an ignoramus, no person of feeling and conscience would be selfish and base, even though they should be persuaded that the fool, the dunce, or the rascal is better satisfied with his lot than they are with theirs.” Mill would assert that character formation is necessary in the cultivation of high quality pleasures: “Utilitarianism, therefore, could only attain its end by the general cultivation of nobleness of character, even if each individual were only benefitted by the nobleness of others, and his own, so far as happiness is concerned, were a sheer deduction from the benefit.” Moreover, subordinate rules are what we would normally call “common sense morality”. Property of and for the exclusive use of SLU. Reproduction, storing in a retrieval system, distributing, uploading or posting online, or transmitting in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise of any part of this document, without the prior written permission of SLU, is strictly prohibited.20  Document Code FM-STL-013 Saint Louis University Revision No. 01 School of Teacher Education and Liberal Arts Effectivity June 07, 2021 Page 21 of 35 Mill identifies the main deficiency of people who are “not happy”: “Next to selfishness, the principal cause which makes life unsatisfactory is want of mental cultivation. A cultivated mind…finds sources of inexhaustible interest in all that surrounds it; in the object of nature, the achievements of art, the imaginations of poetry, the incidents of history, the ways of mankind past and present, and their prospects in the future.” For Mill, therefore, the “greatest” in “greatest happiness principle” does not just refer to the quantity of happiness (or pleasure) but also to a higher quality or kind of happiness (or pleasure) that everyone affected, regardless of status, could experience as the consequences of the action in question. Applied to the body politic, utilitarianism and its objective of “the greatest happiness for the greatest number” should be the goal of all laws and the ultimate criterion of all institution. Thus, he maintained that pleasures do not only differ “quantitatively” but also “qualitatively.” The emphasis of J.S. Mill is the Quality of Pleasure and pleasure differs qualitatively. His Motto is, “A good man would rather be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied.” “A person would rather be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.” And if the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides.” And aside from the qualitative classification of pleasure, Mill stresses on the social character of happiness. One has to seek the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. The end of moral action is not merely one’s own happiness but the greatest amount of happiness for all. Quality is important in terms of durability, elegance, and longevity of anything important. For instance, qualifying an intellectual capacity is based not on numbers but on justification of intelligence through creativity and innovativeness. Qualifying a product means the inherent value or worth of such product – a quality of time, of peace and of tranquility, of enjoyment. A qualitative research deals with analysis based on worth and value of the experiences in proving validity. This picture depicts that an old man who has lived a long life and enjoying music in old age, signifies happiness. EXPLAIN Watch the 10 minutes crash course on Utilitarianism here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-a739VjqdSI Watch the short presentation of Mill’s Utilitarianism here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dr9954kaFBs Watch a short discussion on Bentham’s Utilitarianism here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MnnN000iXM Property of and for the exclusive use of SLU. Reproduction, storing in a retrieval system, distributing, uploading or posting online, or transmitting in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise of any part of this document, without the prior written permission of SLU, is strictly prohibited. 21  Document Code FM-STL-013 Saint Louis University Revision No. 01 School of Teacher Education and Liberal Arts Effectivity June 07, 2021 Page 22 of 35 ELABORATE Having read the discussions above and watched the suggested videos, differentiate Act Utilitarianism from Rule Utilitarianism by providing one example depicting act utilitarianism and another example depicting rule utilitarianism. Act Utilitarianism Rule Utilitarianism Property of and for the exclusive use of SLU. Reproduction, storing in a retrieval system, distributing, uploading or posting online, or transmitting in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise of any part of this document, without the prior written permission of SLU, is strictly prohibited. 22  Document Code FM-STL-013 Saint Louis University Revision No. 01 School of Teacher Education and Liberal Arts Effectivity June 07, 2021 Page 23 of 35 EVALUATE *** The graded assignments for Modules 4, 5 and 6 are all integrated into the following summative assessments: (1) Midterm Integrated Quiz (2) Midterm Integrated Assignment Your course facilitator will give instructions in the classroom. Property of and for the exclusive use of SLU. Reproduction, storing in a retrieval system, distributing, uploading or posting online, or transmitting in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise of any part of this document, without the prior written permission of SLU, is strictly prohibited. 23  Document Code FM-STL-013 Saint Louis University Revision No. 01 School of Teacher Education and Liberal Arts Effectivity June 07, 2021 Page 24 of 35 MODULE 6: Ethical Framework: Immanuel Kant and Rights Theorist Module 6 focuses on the Deontological ethical framework in making moral decisions. It is aimed at understanding Kantian ethical theory and its relevance to the present world, and to use Kantian ethics in evaluating and making sound and reasonable decisions concerning moral dilemma cases with the focus in mind of the concept of duty in the theory of legalism. Learning Outcomes: At the end of Module 6, you should be able to: 1. articulate the importance of sound and reasonable decisions in moral dilemmas; 2. identify the different kinds of Rights; 3. explain the role of duty as the basis of good; 4. formulate maxims that can become a moral law; 5. cite instances where someone else’s maxim cannot rationally become a moral law; 6. differentiate a hypothetical from the categorical imperative; and 7. identify the strengths and weaknesses of deontology as a moral framework. ENGAGE Which do you think should be given more weight when making moral decisions: the consequences of the action or the intention of the person doing the act? Why? Property of and for the exclusive use of SLU. Reproduction, storing in a retrieval system, distributing, uploading or posting online, or transmitting in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise of any part of this document, without the prior written permission of SLU, is strictly prohibited.24  Document Code FM-STL-013 Saint Louis University Revision No. 01 School of Teacher Education and Liberal Arts Effectivity June 07, 2021 Page 25 of 35 EXPLORE  Deontology Deontology came from the Greek word “deon,” which means ‘duty’ or responsibility. Deontological theories assert that the morality of an action depends on its intrinsic nature, its motives, or its rules or principles and not on its consequences. Duty theories base morality on specific, foundational principles of obligation. These theories are sometimes called deontological, from the Greek word deon, or duty, in view of the foundational nature of our duty or obligation. They are also sometimes called non- consequentialist since these principles are obligatory, irrespective of the consequences that might follow from our actions. For example, it is wrong to not care for our children even if it results in some great benefit, such as financial savings. 6.1. Immanuel Kant An example of a deontological ethics is the Kantian ethics, giving more preference on the performance of duty and intention of the act rather than its consequences. In his book, “Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals,” Kant propounds that a person who fruitfully resists the temptation of desire has willpower (willpower means a combination of determination and self-discipline that enables somebody to do something despite the difficulties involved) while the individual who gives in and acts to satisfy the desire does not have willpower. This concept of willpower brings to mind the following model of human action: The agent begins with a group of beliefs and desires that are motives or reasons to action. Motives to action are like forces that get the body into action. The agent, however, must (or at least should) evaluate the desires to determine whether they should or shouldn’t be satisfied. The agent’s reason acts as the evaluator. When reason acts as evaluator, reason is also considered governor, because it is the last thing that determines the will (will means the part of the mind with which somebody consciously decides things; the use of the mind to make decisions about things; the determination to do something or a desire or inclination to do something), which in turn determines action. Before a particular desire can be acted on by the agent, the act of willing to attempt to satisfy the desire must first exist. The agent needs to choose or decide to either act or not act on the desire. Only then does the body act. Hence, we could imagine human action schematically in the following manner: Property of and for the exclusive use of SLU. Reproduction, storing in a retrieval system, distributing, uploading or posting online, or transmitting in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise of any part of this document, without the prior written permission of SLU, is strictly prohibited. 25  Document Code FM-STL-013 Saint Louis University Revision No. 01 School of Teacher Education and Liberal Arts Effectivity June 07, 2021 Page 26 of 35 Beliefs + desires → evaluation of reason → Act of will to satisfy desire (deciAion) → Action to satisfy desire. In any event that reason is not acting as evaluator, the model turns into something like this: Beliefs + desires → Act of will to satisfy desire (decision) → Action to satisfy desire. Immanuel Kant acknowledged that desires often conflict. There are instances that acting to satisfy one desire will ensure that we cannot satisfy another desire. Let us say for example that you have the desire to go out with friends this coming Saturday to dance and party. Satisfying now this desire would mean sacrificing your other desire to jump to bed early and maximize the highly recommended hours of sleep of 7 to 8 hours a day. Take again for example the given situation, you have the desire to play DOTA or to have an EB with someone else you have been chatting lately over the net after your class this afternoon; however, you also have the desire to read something about Immanuel Kant’s life so that you will not be getting a failing score in your quiz in this subject next meeting. In such instances where we have with us conflicting desires, we must decide which desire to satisfy. As rational individuals, it is expected on our part that we have to let our reason decide between conflicting desires (but sometimes, as individuals with organic or earthly bodies with organic or earthly desires and needs, we oftentimes find ourselves consumed in satisfying our base desires. I am not saying this as an excuse but we should at least now how to master our desires as rational individuals…I hope you still remember “the mark of virtue” of Aristotle). No particular action will be done until our will has been activated. Hence, our will is considered to be the master of our actions. According to Immanuel Kant, if we are rational, then our will must not be the slave of our desires by merely doing the request or command of our desires. Our will instead can cooperate with our reason to master whatever desires we have. The only thing that is good without qualification or restriction is a good will. A good will alone is good in all circumstances and in that sense is an absolute good or unconditioned good. The goodness of a good will is not derived from the goodness of the results which it produces. A good will continues t