Chapter 5 Moral Reasoning PDF

# Chapter 5 Moral Reasoning ## Overview This chapter presents a logical analysis of the process that leads to moral judgement. It discusses the seven-step moral reasoning model, which serves as a guide on how to make decisions when one is faced with moral dilemmas. ## Objectives At the end of th...

# Chapter 5 Moral Reasoning ## Overview This chapter presents a logical analysis of the process that leads to moral judgement. It discusses the seven-step moral reasoning model, which serves as a guide on how to make decisions when one is faced with moral dilemmas. ## Objectives At the end of the chapter, you should be able to: 1. Explain moral reasoning as a process. 2. Use the seven-step moral reasoning model appropriately to solve a dilemma. ## Moral Reasoning Upon entering college and enrolling in an ethics class, the students have already made countless decisions and gone through the moral reasoning process many times. Regardless how tentative each one's procedure might be, one has gotten used to it. Before using any guide, or tips perhaps, on how to d moral reasoning, they each must have the opportunity to reflect on their own. The seven-step process of moral reasoning in this chapter is a suggested model and not a prescribed method. There is no assumption that the process will be an improvement for everyone. Some young people could be mature beyond their years and have developed their own effective ways of making moral decisions. **Reasoning** is a process of drawing a conclusion from one or more premises. **Moral reasoning** is the process of deriving conclusions about what is good and what is the right way to act. In the theory of the American psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg, every stage has its characteristic moral reasoning pattern or at least a major premise. Given the situation, individuals reach different conclusions and make different moral judgments based on the premises. In short, it results to relativism. ## Moral Relativism Moral Relativism defeats the very purpose of ethics. On one hand, it invalidates all ethical theories, leaving no basis for justification. On the other, it permits any behavior, which in practice may result in conflicts. ## The Seven-Step Moral Reasoning Model Moral judgment refers to the mental act of determining the right act to do in a given situation, which often arises from issues or dilemmas. There is no hard and-fast rule on resolving moral dilemmas as they vary widely, and different people have different ways of approaching them. As earlier mentioned, different people have different ways of approaching them. Ethics has yet to see one moral reasoning process that everyone finds acceptable and that proves effective in every situation. However, some heuristics may be made as a guide. The moral reasoning model given, which is adapted from Dr. William W. May, may be followed if and when it applies. ### Step 1. Gather the facts. Find relevant information (who, what, when, where, why, and how) about the situation. Some ethical dilemmas can be resolved simply by clarifying facts. Even with complex cases, gathering of relevant facts is necessary in resolving them. Sometimes available information might not be enough. Intelligent decision may require not only what is already known but also awareness of what should have been known. For example, discrimination against homosexuals is often caused by ignorance about the causes of homosexuality. The more facts as bases of a conclusion, the more likely that the conclusion would lead to an intelligent decision. ### Step 2. Determine the ethical issues. An ethical issue is about competing interests. For instance, a woman being robbed is torn between giving away her valuables and the risk of fighting the robber; she either protects her property (and fight crime) or protect her life. The more people involved (therefore, more interests), the more complicated an issue would likely be. Issues must be presented in versus format to highlight the conflicting interests. For example, the Heinz dilemma can be presented as the right to life of Heinz's wife versus the druggist's right to property. ### Step 3. Identify the principles that have a bearing on the case. Every ethical dilemma involves some principles or norms. The more principles are involved (especially when they cannot all be met), the more complex a dilemma is. Norms are not equal; some may take precedence over others relative to the situation. ### Step 4. List the alternatives. A dilemma presents two courses of action to take, but they do not necessarily represent the only or even the best options. One has to be creative in finding other possibilities or options. With more alternatives comes better chances of making an intelligent decision. ### Step 5. Compare the alternatives with the principles. Alternatives are not equal. Some deserve serious consideration. Others are just impractical and thus can be dismissed with little deliberation. One way to tell is to compare the alternatives with the principles. If the dilemma is simple enough that it involves only one principle, and only one of the many alternatives meets the principle, then at this point a moral decision can be made. ### Step 6. Weigh the consequences. Aside from principles, consequences have to be considered in moral reasoning. For some ethicists, they are the most important consideration. While emphasis on consequence has its own problems, it tends to be practical. However, considering the consequences of alternatives is an unreliable guide on what to do. One cannot precisely know the consequences of an action beforehand, especially the long-term ones. One has to act first, then the effects of one's action cannot be undone. There are just too many possibilities and uncertainties. For instance, when a patient's chances of survival is uncertain, the family can be torn between unplugging the respirator (allowing the patient to die) and prolonging a loved one's life. The consequences, ranging from emotional stress to financial burden, are too varied that they defy comparison. ### Step 7. Make a Decision. Ideally, one should be able to clear confusions and remove doubts at this point, though in the real world some uncertainties might remain. Nevertheless, one should make a moral decision to solve some practical time-sensitive problem, the consequences of which can seriously affect people's lives. The inability to decide, a failure to act, would still count as an act of omission. Whether one acts or not, there would be consequences. ## Example of Dilemma Below is an example of a dilemma. It highlights the reality that oftentimes decisions have to be made in spite of incomplete information and uncertainties. The emergency medical services group has received a vehicular accident report. An ambulance has been dispatched right away, and it arrives at the scene minutes later. The emergency medical technician (EMT) finds an adult female, a child of more or less ten years old, and an adult male, all lying on the road, and a damaged motorcycle nearby. Upon quick assessment of each one, he notes the following: 1. The female is wearing a helmet without a visor. She has abrasions with capillary bleeding on different parts of the body. She is groaning but unresponsive. 2. The child has no helmet. He is unconscious. His arm is broken with a bone protruding. He is bleeding profusely. His breathing is normal, but his heartbeat is slow. 3. The male is unconscious. The right side of his face is swollen; his skull is cracked and bleeding. A clear fluid is coming out of the ears. His breathing is shallow, and his heartbeat is slow. The EMT can only attend to one of the victims. Also, the ambulance can only take one patient at a time to the hospital. Which one should the EMT prioritize? Let us work out a possible solution using the seven-step moral reasoning model. ### Step 1 Here are the facts of the situation: All three people need immediate help, but the gravity of injury of each varies. There is no way to ascertain since all are unresponsive or unconscious. The EMT does a rapid assessment (a standard procedure for emergencies that are time-sensitive), but it only provides a rough estimate of the situation and no detailed information. ### Step 2 The situation involves more patients than what the EMT can handle simultaneously. Thus, only one patient must be given priority. The ethical issue is this: Prioritizing one of the injured means delaying the treatment of the others. Which of them should receive immediate treatment first? ### Step 3 The health care ethical principles are beneficence, non-maleficence, veracity, autonomy, and justice. * It is implied that the EMT is willing to help all the injured, but he can only attend to one. * It is implied that the EMT has no intention to harm anyone, though choosing to give immediate treatment to one can adversely affect the other two. * Veracity does not apply in the situation as the EMT has little information and has no reason to withhold it from anyone. * Autonomy does not apply in the situation since all three victims are physically and mentally unable to make decisions for themselves. * Ideally, benefits should be distributed equally. However, because the EMT is alone, he cannot provide benefits to all the injured. * Furthermore, the principle of triage prescribes that those who have more chances of survival are to be prioritized over those who have a slim chance to live. ### Step 4 The EMT has three alternatives. He can choose to give treatment first to one of the victims. * a. The adult female - She seems to have a high chance of survival because she has less serious injury, positive breathing, and circulation. * b. The child - He seems to have a high chance of survival, although he needs immediate care to keep him from bleeding to death. * c. The adult male - He seems to have a slim chance of survival even if he receives immediate care. ### Step 5 The primary _aim_ of health care is to maintain health and save life. So, the one who could benefit the most should be given priority. Also, whenever possible, the number of beneficiaries should be maximized. Even if the adult male receives immediate medical care, he would likely die because of his severe injuries. However, the adult female has no apparent life-threatening injury, so her treatment can be delayed. Also, the child could likely survive only if he is treated immediately. ### Step 6 Below are the likely consequences of the alternatives. * **1 survivor out of 3:** If the adult female is treated first, she would likely survive. Then the child and the adult male would almost surely die. * **2 survivors out of 3:** If the child gets treated first, he would likely survive. The adult female could still survive, but the adult male would most surely die. * **1 survivor out of 3:** If the adult male is treated first, he could still die given the severity of his injury. The adult female may still survive, but the child would almost surely die. ### Step 7 Prioritize the child - pack, load, and go. Below are some insights about the dilemma. 1. At times the information available is incomplete. One has to decide quickly based on a rough estimate of the situation. 2. The number of alternatives may complicate decision-making, especially when many people's lives or welfare are at stake. 3. While there is more than one alternative, the consequences are uncertain. 4. Regardless how much one tries to do good for others, one may not be able to help everyone. Someone or some people may have to be left behind. 5. The choice to make in a dilemma is not always between good or bad; sometimes it is between good and better. ## Conclusion Moral reasoning is a skill. One can learn and develop it through practice. Also, it is a mental skill. It is not purely intellectual; much of it involves one's emotional stability and strong will. With the right mindset, one can use it in actual situations. Developing moral reasoning is a continuous process. One should aim to develop a pattern of thoughts and actions; the neural connections made are ready to be activated when a situation arises. The seven-step model has its own limitations, though. It represents a heuristic process that tries to encapsulate a long, complicated process in a short series of tasks. It is not maximally reliable, though at times it can work. Also, the appreciation of facts in the process can be subjective; thus, it is vulnerable to personal bias and other psychological weaknesses. However, the model offers a way of looking at dilemmas from both consequentialist and principle-based moral reasoning. ## Reference Rae Scott B., and Paul M. Cox. _Bioethics: A Christian Approach in a Pluralistic Age_ (Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1999). ## Exercise Solve the dilemma below using the seven-step moral reasoning model. Mr. Y goes out to celebrate his recent 18th birthday with his friends. After dinner, they go to a condominium unit of one of his friends. One of them brings out some marijuana and encourages Mr. Y to smoke. Surprised, he has not known that his friends use illegal drugs until then. He has never tried any illegal drug before, and he is not inclined to do so. Even though they assure him that, unlike methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), marijuana has no lasting adverse effect, he is not convinced. All his friends present are smoking marijuana; he does not want to be a killjoy. If you were Mr. Y, what would you do and why?