Scribd
Upload
717 views3 pages

Quiz 5 Reviewers

1. The document discusses reason and impartiality as minimum requirements for morality. Moral judgments should be backed by reasons and consider all individuals' interests equally without bias. 2. It then outlines Scott B. Rae's 7-step model for moral reasoning which involves gathering facts, identifying ethical issues and relevant principles, listing alternatives, comparing alternatives to principles, weighing consequences, and making a decision. 3. The 7-step model is praised for being adaptable to different moral and ethical perspectives in a diverse society while still promoting the important roles of reason and impartiality in ethical deliberation.

Uploaded by

Desiree Calpito
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
717 views3 pages

Quiz 5 Reviewers

1. The document discusses reason and impartiality as minimum requirements for morality. Moral judgments should be backed by reasons and consider all individuals' interests equally without bias. 2. It then outlines Scott B. Rae's 7-step model for moral reasoning which involves gathering facts, identifying ethical issues and relevant principles, listing alternatives, comparing alternatives to principles, weighing consequences, and making a decision. 3. The 7-step model is praised for being adaptable to different moral and ethical perspectives in a diverse society while still promoting the important roles of reason and impartiality in ethical deliberation.

Uploaded by

Desiree Calpito
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

QUIZ 5 REVIEWERS

Part 2: The Act (Lesson 2: Reason and Impartiality as Minimum Requirement for
Morality)
Reason and Impartiality as Minimum Requirement for Morality
 One of the reasons Ethical Subjectivism and Emotivism are not viable theories in
ethics is that they miss a distinction between moral judgements and mere
expressions of personal preference. Genuine moral or value judgements ought to be
backed up by pertinent reasons. Moreover, they must possess the quality of
impartiality, which means, among other things that personal feelings or inclination
should be suppressed if necessary.
Reason and Impartiality Defined
 In Philosophy, reason is the basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction. As
a quality, it refers to the capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; for
consciously making sense of things, establishing and verifying facts, applying
common sense and logic, and justifying, and if necessary, changing practices,
institutions, and beliefs based on existing or new existing information.

 Moral judgements require backing by reasons. In the absence of sensible rationale,


they are merely capricious and ignorable.

 Moral deliberation is a matter of weighing reasons and being guided by them. In


understanding the nature of morality, considering reasons is indispensable. Truth in
Ethics entails being justified by good reasons. That is, the rightful moral decision
involves selecting the option that has the power of reason on its side.

 Impartiality, on the other hand, involves the idea that each individual’s interests and
point of view are equally important. Also called evenhandedness or fair-
mindedness, impartiality is a principle of justice holding that decisions ought to be
based on objective criteria, rather than on the basis of bias, prejudice, or preferring
to the benefit to one person over another for improper reasons.
The 7-Step Moral Reasoning Model
 Contemporary author Scott B. Rae, Ph.D. proposes a model for making ethical
decisions. To say the least, his suggested 7-step model introduces the use of reason
and impartiality in deciding on moral matters. Rae starts presenting his model by
telling the case of a twenty year old Hispanic male who was brought to a hospital
emergency room, having suffered abdominal injuries due to gunshot wounds
obtained in gang violence.
TL:DR
 The patient had no objection to his sister providing this care, but he insisted that she
not be told that he had tested HIV positive. Though he had always had a good
relationship with his sister, she did not know that he was an active homosexual. His
even greater fear was that his father would hear of his homosexual orientation and
lifestyle. Homosexuality is generally looked upon with extreme disfavor among
Hispanics.

 To sufficiently address the ethical dilemmas that people encounter regularly, Rae
offers a model which can be used to ensure that all needed bases are converted. He
admits that the model is not a formula that will automatically generate the “right”
answer to an ethical problem but a guideline in ascertaining that all the right
questions are being asked in the process of ethical deliberation.
The 7-Step Moral Reasoning Model
The following are the steps or elements of a model for making moral decisions:
1. Gather the facts – Some moral dilemmas can be resolved just by clarifying the facts
of the case in question.
2. Determine the Ethical Issues – The moral issues should be correctly stated in terms
of composing interests. It is these conflicting interests that practically make for a moral
dilemma. The issues must be presented in a P vs. Q format in order to reflect the
interests that are colliding in a specific moral dilemma.
Ex. Interest of Sister and the Patient
3. Identify the Principles that Have a Bearing on the Case – What principles have a
bearing on the case? In any moral dilemma, there are sure moral values or principles
that are vital to the rival positions being taken. It is very significant to recognize these
principles, and in some cases, to decide whether some principles are to be weighted
more heavily than others.
4. List the Alternatives – This step involves coming up with various alternative courses
of action as part of the creative thinking included in resolving a moral dilemma.
- Listing the courses of action
5. Compare the Alternatives with the Principles – This step involves eliminating
alternatives according to the moral principles that have a bearing on the case. In many
cases, the case will be resolved at this point, since the principles will remove all the
alternatives except one. As a matter of fact, the purpose of this comparison is to
determine whether there is a clear decision that can be made without further
deliberation.
6. Weigh the Consequences – If the principles do not produce a clear decision, “then a
consideration of the consequences of the remaining available alternatives is in order.
Both positive and negative consequences are to be considered. They should be
informally weighted, since some positive consequences are more beneficial than others
and some negative consequences are to be considered. They should be informally
weighted, since some positive consequences are more beneficial than others and some
negative consequences are more detrimental than others.”
7. Make a Decision – Since deliberation ought not to go on forever, a decision must be
made at some point. I must be realized that one common element to moral dilemmas is
that there are no easy and painless solutions to them. Normally, the decision that is
made is one that possesses the least number of problems or negative consequences,
not one that is devoid of them.

For one thing, Rae’s model is good in the sense that is has room in it to accommodate a
whole host of different moral and ethical perspectives, considering the ethnic and
religious diversity of our society.
The model is not necessarily tied to any one specific perspective, but can be employed
comfortably with a variety of ethnic, cultural and religious backgrounds.
Finally, it promotes the primal consideration of reason and impartiality in ethics without
necessarily eradicating the role of feelings in ethical deliberation

You might also like