7-Step Moral Reasoning Model PDF

7-step Moral Reasoning Model by Scott Rae 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. Nevertheles...

7-step Moral Reasoning Model by Scott Rae 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. This model does not guide one to an absolutely correct or “right” decision to a moral dilemma but rather may guide an individual to ask the right questions to ethical deliberation (Rae 2018). 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. 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 these questions: Do you have 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 in order to specify what issue one has to make a decision to. This section must likewise 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 creates the dilemma. Moral values and virtues must support the competing interest in order for an ethical dilemma to exist. If you cannot identify the underlying values/virtues then you do not have an ethical dilemma (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 in order 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, 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. 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). 4. List the alternatives  After having identified relevant values, virtues, and principles involving the moral situation, possible alternative courses of actions must then be proposed and briefly explained. These suggested courses of actions must be evaluated based on its applicability, sensibility, 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 broader selection of ideas (Rae 2018). 5. Compare the alternatives with the virtues/principles  The initial list of suggested courses of actions 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 of the alternatives will be eliminated (even if you still have to go on to step 6). Often here you have to weight 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 consequence is – some might have greater weight than others (Rae 2018).  7. Make a decision  After having analyzed the moral dilemma situation (from steps 1 thru 6), one must now make a decision based on what has been previously discussed and must clearly justify the decision that has been made.  Ethical decisions rarely have pain-free solutions – it might be you have to choose the solution with the least number of problems/painful consequences (Rae 2018). Example situation: Miles is a dedicated employee. Despite his poor circumstances, he married Lynette, who comes from a wealthy family. Lynette’s family was never supportive of their union. When they attended Lynette’s family events, Miles was frequently insulted, embarrassed, and disrespected. Lynette is always saddened by their predicament, yet she cannot speak out against her family for fear of losing her entire estate. Despite the insults directed at Miles, he stood firm in his convictions and continued to work diligently. While he was performing his duties, he noticed that Ms. Gemalyn, his boss at the tiny publishing business where he worked, was catching a glance of him with her eyes full of admiration. Miles felt strange and attempted to avoid her boss’ gaze, but the lady kept approaching him as if she was pleading for his intention. Miles made every effort to get away, but he was cornered. A tremendous scream filled the room as the boss was prepared to do something to Miles. They both noticed Lynette’s sister, Abie Kate, who had a shocked expression on her face. Abie was intended to get a copy of Janna Mae’s proposal for a new product release in the publishing house where Miles worked, but she was taken aback by what Gemalyn was ready to do to Miles, which she mistook for Miles initiating the situation. She hastily exited the building and, as expected, informed the entire Booc family of what she had just witnessed. When Lynette heard what her sister had just stated, she had a meltdown. Lynette was supposed to reveal that she was 2 weeks pregnant with their first child on that day. Miles hurriedly found his way into the Booc residence. When he approached at the gate, Manong Jeson, the family’s security, barred him from entering because he had been told that he was no longer permitted to do so. On the other hand, Donna Mae, the oldest of the Booc siblings, suggested that Miles be allowed in and given the opportunity to explain the issue. Lynette interrupts her sister, saying that she has heard enough and that her kid does not require a traitorous father. They can’t even say anything because of what they’ve just heard and the certainty that Lynette intends what she would say. Lynette was devastated at the idea of Miles cheating on her after they had already created a family. She should have given her husband the chance to explain himself, but she was exhausted and heartbroken. Her mother entered the room and counselled her to go to the US so that the baby could grow up in a healthier environment. Lynette was flabbergasted by her mother’s suggestion and pondered it for a lengthy moment. If she moved to the US and lived there for the longest time possible, she would be guilty of sin before God for abandoning her husband and not giving him the opportunity to explain, or she could stay and stress herself out, which might result in a miscarriage because the doctor told her that she had a very delicate uterus. Try resolving the dilemma using the 7 STEPS OF MORAL REASONING: 1. Gather the facts. 5. Compare the alternatives with the virtues/principles _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________ ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ 2. Determine the ethical issue. 6. Consider the consequences or tests of the options _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________ ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ 3. Determine the virtues/principles who have bearing on the case 7. Make a decision _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________ ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ _____________________________________________ 4. List the alternatives or develop a list of option. _____________________________________________ ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________  Justice and Fairness: Promoting the Common Good The Nature of the Theory Justice is generally defined as fairness. It is the establishment of rights in a society according to its rules of law or equity. It speaks about impartiality, no special treatment. Equal opportunity and rights for everyone. JUSTICE AND FAIRNESS Justice is defined as giving each person what they deserve, or to more formal language, giving them what is legally theirs. In contemporary speech, the terms justice and fairness are commonly used interchangeably because of their indissoluble relationship. Fairness is typically considered to mean “the capacity to judge without regard to one’s thoughts or interests” while justice is typically understood to mean “a standard of rightness” in most instances. Fairness has also been used to describe the capacity to make decisions that are concrete and specific to a certain situation rather than being overly general. PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE The most fundamental principle of justice is the principle that "equals should be treated equally and unequals, unequally." In its contemporary form, this principle is sometimes expressed as follows: "Individuals should be treated the same, unless they differ in ways that are relevant to the situation in which they are involved." For example: If Hansel and Gretel both do the same work, and there are no relevant differences between them or the work they are doing, then in justice they should be paid the same wages. And if Hansel is paid more than Gretel simply because he is a man, or because he is white, then we have an injustice—a form of discrimination—because race and sex are not relevant to normal work situations. There are, however, many differences that we deem as justifiable criteria for treating people differently. For example: it is fair and just when a parent gives his own children more attention and care in his private affairs than he gives the children of others; it is fair when the person who is first in a line at a theater is given first choice of theater tickets; it is just when the government gives benefits to the needy that it does not provide to more affluent citizens; it is just when some who have done wrong are given punishments that are not meted out to others who have done nothing wrong; and it is fair when those who exert more efforts or who make a greater contribution to a project receive more benefits from the project than others. TYPES OF JUSTICE 1. Distributive Justice  is concerned with giving all members of society a "fair share" of the benefits and resources available  It refers to the extent to which society's institutions ensure that benefits and burdens are distributed among society's members in ways that are fair and just. When the institutions of a society distribute benefits or burdens in unjust ways, there is a strong presumption that those institutions should be changed.  For example, the American institution of slavery in the pre-civil war South was condemned as unjust because it was a glaring case of treating people differently on the basis of race. 2. Retributive or Corrective Justice  refers to the extent to which punishments are fair and just.  In general, punishments are held to be just to the extent that they take into account relevant criteria such as the seriousness of the crime and the intent of the criminal, and discount irrelevant criteria such as race.  It would be barbarously unjust, for example, to chop off a person's hand for stealing a dime, or to impose the death penalty on a person who by accident and without negligence injured another party. Studies have frequently shown that when blacks murder whites, they are much more likely to receive death sentences than when whites murder whites or blacks murder blacks. 3. Compensatory Justice  refers to the extent to which people are fairly compensated for their injuries by those who have injured them  just compensation is proportional to the loss inflicted on a person  This is precisely the kind of justice that is at stake in debates over damage to workers' health in coal mines, for example. Some argue that mine owners should compensate the workers whose health has been ruined. Others argue that workers voluntarily took on this risk when they chose employment in the mines. DEFINING EQUALITY, EQUITY, AND JUSTICE Even though Equity and Equality sound similar the differences between them matter. Societal structures place people of certain status such as race or socioeconomic status at differing points of advantage or disadvantage with structural barriers. What is Equality?  The assumption is that everyone benefits from the same supports. This is considered to be equal treatment.  Equality is dividing resources equally but does not factor differences in need and ability. Everybody is given the exact same quantity of resources.  As seen in the image, both boys are given the same size ladder not factoring in differences of access – leading to one boy not able to access the apples. What is Equity?  Everyone gets the support they need.  Equity is not only dividing resources fairly and equally, but also factoring in differences amongst people. Differences such as race and socioeconomic status that would require different support to ensure the same opportunity of success.  This can be shown in the image by the different height of the ladders. The boy on the right has a taller ladder because the tree is higher on his side. Whereas the other boy has a shorter ladder because he has a shorter distance to reach to gather apples. They have different sized ladders to make sure they are both able to pick the apples. What is Justice?  Everyone can benefit because the cause(s) of the inequity is addressed. The systemic barrier has been removed.  Justice is long-term equity. It looks to create equity in systems as well as individuals. “Justice can take equity one step further by fixing the systems in a way that leads to long-term, sustainable, equitable access for generations to come.”  As seen in the image, both boys are given the same size ladder but instead of giving them different sized ladders, they give added supports to ensure both are able to access the apples. Another example:  VIEW OF DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE EGALITARIAN  Egalitarianism is a political philosophy that asserts that everyone should be treated equally from the moment of their birth. Usually, this means being accorded the same treatment before the law and in society at large.  It promotes the abolition of discrimination as well as the belief in human equality, particularly with relation to social, political, and economic rights and benefits. The notion of human equality is focused primarily on privileges and rights in the social, political, and economic spheres. TYPES OF EGALITARIAN:  Economic Egalitarianism – is a state in which all members of a society are on an equal footing and have access to all available resources in terms of power, wealth, and contribution. It is a fundamental tenet of several socialist systems.  Moral Egalitarianism – is the belief that all people deserve respect equally, that all people are equal in terms of their intrinsic value or moral standing, and that equality is a key component of justice.  Legal Egalitarianism – the idea that everyone is bound by the same laws, that no one, organization, or class is granted any special legal rights, and that all witnesses' testimony is given equal weight.  Political Egalitarianism – is a situation where everyone in a society has an equal amount of political influence or authority. It is a cornerstone of the majority of democracies.  Luck Egalitarianism – is a distributive justice perspective that aims to distinguish between outcomes that are the product of random chance and those that are the result of deliberate choices. It is held by a number of left-wing political theorists.  Gender Egalitarianism – is a type of society in which men and women hold equal power, or a family arrangement in which both parents hold equal power.  Racial Egalitarianism – the separation of various racial groups in daily life, whether required by law or by social conventions, is the lack of racial segregation.  Opportunity Egalitarianism – is the notion that equity can be achieved through resource redistribution, typically in the form of a capital award given at the age of majority.  Christian Egalitarianism – affirms that everyone is equal before God and in Christ, and it teaches gender equality in Christian marriage and church leadership. CAPITALISM  A form of economic organization known as capitalism is based primarily on private ownership and is open to new ideas, ventures, and owners, or, to put it another way, to fresh capital.  Instability is frequently linked to the incidence of financial crises, employment insecurity, and a failure to involve those who are disadvantaged. This tendency of capitalism to generate instability is also widely acknowledged.  The private ownership of the means of production and the use of those means for the aim of making a profit are the cornerstones of the capitalist economic system.  The fundamental tenet of capitalist justice is that everyone should be rewarded in line with their level of productivity, effort, or contribution. SOCIAL JUSTICE  The phrase "social justice" refers to the concept of equitable and just interactions between individuals and their society. This is measured using the explicit and implicit terms for the allocation of financial resources, chances for independent activity, and social privileges.  Karl Marx provides a substantially more upbeat assessment of what is required to build a society based on the political ideal of equality.  He contends that the principle of "from everyone according to his or her capacity, to everyone according to his or her contribution" should be followed at least initially in the allocation of societal goods. After communist society has grown to its highest level, according to Marx, distribution will follow the tenet of "from everyone according to his or her ability, to each according to his or her need."  One of the ways socialists suggest to actualize their vision of a just society is to give workers democratic control over their workplaces.  They contend that giving workers more say over how they do their duties will increase the sense of intrinsic satisfaction such workers derive from their employment.  Workers will be more motivated to work as a direct result of this because the task they produce will directly meet their needs. “The route to achieving equity will not be accomplished through treating everyone equally. It will be achieved by treating everyone equitably, or justly according to their circumstances.”