Chapter 4: Philosophical View and Feelings

**Chapter 4\ \ Introductory Statement:** \"Never make decisions on temporary feelings\" is a common reminder often shared by those who have experienced regret from emotional, rash decisions. Typically, this advice comes from parents, elders, friends, or literature. **Philosophical View (Kant\'s Pe...

**Chapter 4\ \ Introductory Statement:** \"Never make decisions on temporary feelings\" is a common reminder often shared by those who have experienced regret from emotional, rash decisions. Typically, this advice comes from parents, elders, friends, or literature. **Philosophical View (Kant\'s Perspective):** **Immanuel Kant** emphasized reason over feelings in ethical decisions. Morality, according to Kant, is based on moral law, which is grounded in reason, not emotion. Reason is universal and independent of personal experiences, unlike feelings, which are subjective and changeable. Therefore, feelings are unreliable for making moral decisions because they lack absolute worth. **Max Scheler\'s Phenomenology of Feelings** - **Influence of Edmund Husserl:** - Max Scheler was influenced by **Edmund Husserl**, who developed the method of phenomenology, emphasizing the \"bracketing\" of presuppositions, or **epoche**. This allowed the pure essence of an object to be seen without interference from prior assumptions. - Scheler, however, viewed phenomenology not just as a method but as an **attitude**. He emphasized the importance of disengagement or **epoche** as a way to truly understand the essence of an object. - **Disengagement and Love:** - For Scheler, **disengagement** (or epoche) is necessary to grasp the true essence of an object, which can only be achieved through **love**. - Love is an attitude that helps connect the one experiencing the feeling with the object, similar to **Gilligan\'s concept of care**. - This love motivates humans to participate in and understand the nature of the world and the objects in it. - **Values in Objects:** - Scheler argued that objects carry values and these values are revealed through emotional acts like **love** and **hate**. - **Love** helps reveal the deeper significance of an object, while **hate** distances us from it. - **Values** can be positive (attracting us to an object) or negative (repelling us). These values exist in a **hierarchy**: - **Pleasure** (pleasant/unpleasant) - **Utility** (noble/vulgar) - **Vitality** (beautiful/ugly) - **Spirituality** (holy/unholy) - **Pleasure** is the lowest value, and **holiness** is the highest. Higher values are preferred in moral decisions.  **Validation of Values by Feelings:** - **Feeling** is crucial in moral decision-making as it helps validate the **value** of an object or action. - While **reason** identifies objects of high value, the **heart** (or feelings) leads us to prefer them. - Feelings also help us understand and relate to the emotions of others.  **Connecting to Values:** - **Feelings** connect with the values of an object in experience, leading us to prefer positive, high-value objects over negative, low-value ones. - Choosing objects with lower values isn't always wrong as long as it doesn't displace higher values. For example, relaxing at a bar after a stressful day is acceptable if it doesn't interfere with higher values. - **Wrong decisions** arise when negative values or lower-value objects are chosen over positive or higher-value ones, like **cheating** on an exam, which prioritizes success over **honesty and dignity**.  **Cultivating Moral Feelings:** - The development of these moral feelings requires **guiding principles** and the influence of **moral exemplars**---those who have remained faithful to ethics even in challenging situations. - The process of cultivating feelings makes them a **reliable basis** for moral evaluation.  **Authenticity in Decisions:** - **Feelings** make decisions more authentic and personal. Even if we provide logical arguments for a decision, we cannot ignore the **emotional signals** that suggest a moral problem, like feeling bothered or uneasy about a choice. - If you feel troubled by a decision, it may be a signal to **reevaluate** it. If it\'s too late to change the decision, it\'s an opportunity to **learn** from the situation and avoid repeating the mistake. **Chapter 5** **The Indispensability of Moral Reason and Impartiality** - **Tracy Latimer Case:** - In 1993, 12-year-old **Tracy Latimer**, who had cerebral palsy, was killed by her father, **Robert Latimer**, in what he saw as an act of mercy. Tracy had severe physical and cognitive disabilities, and her father claimed that her life was filled with suffering. - Robert was convicted of second-degree murder but received a reduced sentence, which was later overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada. - **Moral Question:** - Did Robert Latimer\'s act of killing Tracy constitute murder, or was it an act of mercy? Some argue her life was **morally precious**, while others contend that her condition rendered her existence one of suffering without meaningful prospects. - **Emotional reactions** to this case, both in favor of and against Latimer's actions, require **sound moral judgment**. Mere emotional responses are insufficient for deciding the ethical correctness of an action. - **Importance of Reason:** - While feelings are significant and signal **moral seriousness**, **reason** remains crucial for making moral judgments. Emotional reactions alone don't lead to sound decisions. - **Rachels** argues that relying purely on emotion can lead to **bad moral choices**. Moral judgments must be based on **good reasons**, guided by rational thought rather than emotional biases. - **Recognizing Good Reasons:** - Good reasons are based on **facts**, not hearsay or false claims. - Moral reasoning should be free from **prejudices** and **bias** to ensure objectivity. - Moral decisions should reference well-established **moral principles** that have stood the test of time, helping to provide clarity and precision in ethical debates. - **Impartiality:** - **Impartiality** requires that all individuals and interests be treated equally. No one should receive special treatment based on their background, race, or other personal characteristics without good reason. - Discrimination without **valid justification** is morally wrong. For example, rejecting someone based on their alma mater or ethnicity without legitimate reasons is unethical. - However, there are cases where certain factors, like institutional alignment (e.g., an Atenean managing Ateneo alumni), may serve as a good reason for specific decisions. **Chapter 6**  **Jen's Dilemma:** - Jen, who works as a house-help for Ms. Carla, is offered extra money in exchange for becoming a **ghost employee** in a hospital project overseen by Ms. Carla. All Jen needs to do is sign an employee contract without performing any actual work. In return, she will receive half of the Php 8000 monthly allowance. Jen, being an active member of her parish, feels conflicted about whether to accept this offer.  **Common Errors in Decision-Making:** 1. **Confusing Moral and Non-Moral Problems:** People often treat problems with different ethical values the same way, without understanding their distinct nature. 2. **due to our laziness** to engage in in-depth thinking, we usually rely on the common method without knowing the appropriateness of the method. - To make appropriate decisions, we must first identify whether a problem is moral or non-moral and apply the correct **principles**. If the solution doesn't lead to a good outcome, it's necessary to **rethink** and search for a better answer. - This process of continuous **moral reflection**---rethinking and refining our solutions---is essential to ethical decision-making. **Framework for Moral Deliberation** When faced with ethical dilemmas, the following framework provides a methodical approach to ensure decisions are well-considered, incorporating both **reason** and **feelings**. 1. **Gather the Facts**: - Ethical dilemmas can often be resolved by clarifying the facts. - It's important to ask: **\"What do we know?\"** and **\"What do we need to know?\"**. Understanding the full context prevents wrong decisions based on incomplete information. 2. **Identify the Stakeholders**: - Consider who will be affected by the decision and what obligations are owed to them. - Try to view the situation from the perspectives of these stakeholders. This helps ensure the decision is fair and takes into account the interests of those involved. 3. **Articulate the Dilemma**: - Identify the **moral values or principles** central to the dilemma, determining which ones are in conflict and which should be prioritized. - Example: If your best friend leaks an exam, do you value **honesty** or **friendship** more? 4. **List the Alternatives**: - Brainstorm different courses of action. The more alternatives considered, the better the chance of finding the best solution. - Sometimes creative options arise that weren\'t initially obvious. 5. **Compare the Alternatives with the Principles**: - Eliminate alternatives that conflict with important **moral principles**. Often, this step reveals the best solution. - If no clear choice emerges, further analysis is needed. 6. **Weigh the Consequences**: - Consider both the **positive** and **negative consequences** of each alternative. - Some consequences are more beneficial or detrimental than others, so they must be carefully weighed. 7. **Make a Decision**: - Eventually, a decision must be made, even if no option is perfect. Choose the one with the least harm or most positive outcome. **Chapter 7** **Key Concepts:** 1. **Moral Imagination**: - **Definition**: The ability to think creatively about moral dilemmas and envision the possible outcomes of different actions. - **Application in Professor X\'s case**: Instead of directly punishing the student by reporting to the Committee on Discipline, Professor X used moral imagination to explore alternative solutions. By asking Student A to write a letter, Professor X opened a way for the student to reflect and possibly correct their behavior. - **Importance**: It helps in finding solutions that might not be immediately apparent, avoiding decisions driven solely by emotional reactions. It also allows for the consideration of the impact on all involved parties, leading to more compassionate and reasoned decisions. 2. **Moral Courage**: - **Definition**: The strength to act on one\'s ethical beliefs even when it is difficult, uncomfortable, or risky. - **Application in Professor X\'s case**: After receiving the letter, Professor X chose not to report the student despite the easier, more conventional option. This required courage, as he had to face potential criticism and trust that his approach would lead to a more positive outcome for the student. - **Importance**: Moral courage is essential when those forces conflict with one\'s ethical beliefs. It helps ensure that moral principles are upheld even when it\'s challenging or inconvenient. **Steps to Moral Deliberation:** 1. **Moral Sensitivity**: Recognizing the moral implications of a situation. In this case, Professor X was sensitive to the student\'s remorse and personal circumstances. 2. **Appeal to Reason**: Making decisions based on rational analysis rather than emotion or rigid adherence to rules. Professor X didn't just follow protocol but looked for a solution that promoted moral growth. 3. **Commitment to Action**: After weighing the options, it's crucial to act on the moral decision. Professor X\'s commitment to a more compassionate solution showed his moral courage. 4. **Respecting Processes and Laws**: While rules are important, moral action may sometimes require stepping beyond the strict legal guidelines when they conflict with what is ethically right. **Challenges:** - **Moral Distress**: This occurs when a person knows the right thing to do but is prevented from doing it due to organizational or external constraints. The text highlights how front-line employees often face this conflict when trying to balance what they know is morally right with institutional rules. - **Moral Seduction**: This refers to the slow process of being swayed by legality or authority to act against one's moral beliefs. The example given discusses how employees with strong moral values might struggle when faced with institutional policies that don't align with those values.