The act

Feeling As instinctive and trained response to moral Dilemma

Learning objectives: AT THE END OF THE WEEK THE LEARNERS WILL BE

ABLE TO : a. Identify human acts

b. Differentiate Human act from acts of Man

Discussion

Human acts

An act that is performed only by a human being and thus is proper to man.
Not every act that a human being does is a distinctively human act. Animals, e.g.,
vegetative acts and acts of perception and of emotion, perform some acts that
human beings do also. These are actions done under the circumstances of
ignorance, passion, fear, violence, and habits. Acts that are performed by men
without being master of them through his intellect and will, therefore acts of man
are involuntary actions.
Human acts are actions done intentionally free and deliberate of a person these
are actions that a man properly masters for he does then with full knowledge and
his own will.

Acts proceeded from a deliberate freewill, a man is fully responsible with the
consequences of his acts ,Involves man’s responsibility and accountability of the
results of his actions .

Essential attributes of human acts knowledge, freedom , voluntariness.

a. Knowledge- an act done knowingly when the does is conscious and aware of
the reason and the consequences of his actions . knowledge is supplied
and the intellect to object to want the object is proposes .
b. Freedom – is an act done by the doer when the does acts by his own
initiative , it makes the doer the father of his action and thus the doer is
responsible for those acts ,he can acknowledge that he has done them
because he wanted to to do them
c. Voluntariness – an act is done willfully when the doer consent to the acts
accepting it as his own and assumes accountability for its consequences . it is
inclined to the good but man sometimes choose evil .

Acts of Man

Acts of man are instinctive, such as physiological in nature. These are actions done
under the circumstances of ignorance, passion, fear, violence, and habits. Acts that
are performed by men without being master of them through his intellect and will,
therefore acts of man are involuntary actions.
 Acts of man are instinctive just like physiologic in nature. These are actions done
under the circumstances of ignorance

Passion, fear, violence and habit . acts performed by men without being master of
them through his intellect and will

Therefore, acts of man are involuntary action.

Acts of man are also acts of person with out the proper use of reason for
example children or innate persons . acts of people asleep or under the influence of
other drugs the loss of direct responsibility is voluntarily however the power of will
might be present.

Therefore human acts are actions performer voluntarily where the actions
performed with the presence of knowledge and the control of the will we refer
these actions as deliberately voluntary and intentional to distinguished the two

Human acts are actions which man performs freely acts of man are those which
happen in a man.

Characteristic of human acts

1. Conscious agents ( knowing )

2. Performed by agent ( free)
3. Performed by agent who decide willfully ( willful)

Kinds of human acts-

a. Elicited - acts performed by will and bodily externalized ex .intention

Kinds of elicited acts

1. Wish- the tendency of the will towards something whether this maybe
realizable
2. Intention – something that is attainable with out being necessarily
committing something to attain it .
3. Consent –acceptance of the will of those needed to carry out the
intention
b. Commanded – actions carried out by minds and body that are ordered by
the will. Commanded of acts- are those done either by mans mental or bodily
power under the command of the will either internal of external
Election - the selection of the will of those selected to carry

Fruition - the enjoyment of the will derived from the attainment of the thing he had
desired early

Examples actions are conscious reasoning , recalling something , encouraging

oneself ,controlling arouse , emotions and others.

External actions- walking, eating, dancing , laughing

Extrinsic and extrinsic evil

The immutability of human acts means that the person performing the acts is
liable of such acts it involves the notion of guilt of innocence. thus actions are
trustworthy or blame worthy , actions are attributed to the doer as their principal
cause .

Modifiers of human acts

Factors that influence man’s inner disposition toward certain actions are called
modifiers of human acts they affect the mental or emotional state of a person to
the extent of voluntariness of an act is either increased or decreased ,

1. ignorance – absence of knowledge which the person ought to possess

Types of ignorance
1.vincible – can be reminded through ordinary diligence and reasonable
efforts
2. .invincible – type person is invincible, having awareness of it
3. Affected ignorance – type by which person keeps by positive efforts in
order to escape responsibility
Principle of ignorance – renders an act involuntarily,
2. passion – desirable harmful things positive emotions ,love, desire delight
,hope and bravery
Negate ve emotions – horror , sadness , despair ,fear, anger
3. fear – disturbance of the mind of a person who is confronted by an
impending danger or harm to himself or loved ones , it is the intact of self-
preservation
Principles of fear
Acts done with fear are voluntary
Acts done of intense fear are panic involuntary
 violence- external actions performed by a person subjected to violence which
reasonably resistance has been offered
4. habits- lasting, readiness and facility born frequently repeated acts for
acting in certain manner.
5. Action and emotion- emotions are instinctive in emotions in origin

Emotions Are Rationale for Some Moral Dilemmas

Sometimes people say it is okay to sacrifice one life to save five others.
Other times, people say it's wrong. Philosophers have debated for decades
why hypothetical moral dilemmas that are logically identical can elicit
different answers. Now a brain imaging study suggests that people's
emotional responses to certain dilemmas guide their reasoning.

Suppose, in a classical moral dilemma, you see a runaway trolley with five
frightened people in it headed for a cliff. They can be saved if you hit a
switch and send the trolley onto another track where, tragically, another
person is standing who would be killed by the trolley. What to do? Most
people say that it's worth sacrificing one life to save five others. intrigued by
the dilemma of the moral dilemmas, a team led by Joshua Greene, a
philosophy grad student at Princeton University in New Jersey, used
functional magnetic resonance imaging to spy on people's brains while they
read and reasoned their way through a number of scenarios. Some
resembled the "switch tracks" dilemma, others the "push body," and some
had no apparent moral component, such as deciding whether to take a bus
or train to some destination. While deliberating the body-pushing set of
moral dilemmas--but not the other scenarios--emotion areas of the brain
How do emotions affect morality?

Emotions – that is to say feelings and intuitions – play a major role in most
of the ethical decisions people make. Most people do not realize how much
their emotions direct their moral choices. ... Emotions evoked by suffering,
such as sympathy and empathy, often lead people to act ethically toward
other

There are several types of moral dilemmas, but the most common of them
are categorized into the following:

1) epistemic and ontological dilemmas,

2) self-imposed and world-imposed dilemmas

3) obligation dilemmas and prohibition dilemmas, and

4) single agent and multi-person dilemmas

Moral feeling is there defined as an unselfish disposition that forces an

individual to consider others' welfare and to conform one's will with the
common will

Graded essay / activity: Answer briefly in not less than 3 paragraphs and not
more than 5.

1. Identify what are the different types of moral dilemmas

2. How can your emotion affect your morality
3. Do you consider sacrifices as a part affecting the persons morality?
4. Give an example of moral dilemmas
 REASONS AND IMPARTIALITY AS REQUIREMENT FOR ETHICS

LEARNING OBJECTIVES:

A) Identify the requirements of impartiality in ones ethical

standards
B) Appreciate the impartial point of view.

REQUIREMENT of impartiality

Philosophers sometimes treat impartiality as if it were equivalent to moral

impartiality. at the very least, the former word is often used, without the qualifying
adjective ‘moral’, even when it is the particularly moral concept that is intended.
This is misleading, since impartiality in its broadest sense is best understood as a
formal notion, while moral impartiality in particular is a substantive concept – and
one concerning which there is considerable dispute. This entry will be
predominantly concerned with moral impartiality – the sort of impartiality, that is,
that commonly features in normative moral and political theories. However, we will
begin by addressing the broader, formal concept, and we will end with a brief
discussion of issues raised by epistemic, rather than moral, impartiality.

It is all too easy to assume that the word impartiality must denote a positive,
unitary concept – presumably a concept closely linked with, if not identical to,
morality. This, however, is simply not the case. Rather, there are various sorts of
behavior that may be described as ‘impartial,’ and some of these obviously have
little or nothing to do with morality. A person who chooses an accountant based
on her friends’ recommendations may be entirely impartial between the various
candidates (members of the pool of local accountants) with respect to their gender,
their age, or where they went to school. Yet if her choice is motivated solely by
rational self-interested considerations then it is clear that the impartiality she
manifests is in no way a form of moral impartiality. To take a more extreme case,
consider an insane serial killer who chooses his victims based on their resemblance
to that some celebrity. The killer may be impartial with respect to his victims’
occupations, religious beliefs, and so forth, but it would be absurd to regard this as
a form of moral impartiality.
The word ‘impartiality’, then, picks out a broad concept that need not have
anything to do with morality. In this broad sense, impartiality is probably best
characterized in a negative rather than positive manner: an impartial choice is
simply one in which a certain sort of consideration (i.e. some property of the
individuals being chosen between) has no influence. An analysis along these lines
has been proposed by Bernard Gert, who holds that “A is impartial in respect R with
regard to group G if and only if A’s actions in respect R are not influenced at all by
which member(s) of G benefit or are harmed by these actions” (Gert 1995, p.104).
Thus, for Gert, impartiality is a property of a set of decisions made by a particular
agent, directed toward a particular group

Morality and impartiality

The impartial point of view

It is characteristic of modern moral thought to see impartiality as a requirement of,

if not a fundamental component of, morality. However, the precise nature of this
connection remains disputed. As Brad Hooker has pointed out, there are at least
three levels at which assessments of moral impartiality may be made. First, one
may ask whether moral rules are being impartially applied. Second, impartial
benevolence may be used as a direct guide to practical decisions. And third, the
content of first-order moral rules may be assessed from an impartial standpoint.
(Hooker 2010)

Let’s begin with the idea that to act morally is to act from the standpoint of
impartial benevolence. Many writers have simply assumed that to assert the
importance of impartiality in the context of morality just is to accept the idea of
acting from such a perspective. It is generally agreed that some sort of close
connection obtains between morality and impartiality. Indeed, the phrases ‘moral
point of view’ and ‘impartial (or ‘impersonal’) point of view’ are sometimes used
interchangeably to refer to the imagined impersonal perspective from which, it is
supposed, moral judgments are to be made (Baier 1958, chapter 8; Harsanyi 1982;
Scheffler 1982, 1985; Smith 1976 [1759]; Wolf 1992; see also Blum 1980, Chapter
3). As noted above, however, the word ‘impartial’ is a general term with many
particular species; it follows that the phrase ‘impartial point of view’ is itself
ambiguous. At most, it might be that the moral point of view constitutes one sort of
impartial point of view.
It is not clear, however, that the demands of impartial benevolence are sufficient to
exhaust those of morality. Treating a person appropriately and respectfully may
well require certain sorts of emotional and/or cognitive responses: sensitivity to her
needs and values, empathy for her suffering, and the like. But if these responses
are pictured as the results of positive traits or attributes (and not simply as, say,
the result of a lack of bias or prejudice), then it is not clear

that merely being impartial between persons is sufficient to guarantee that one will
possess and display the necessary sensitivities. Indeed, characterizations of
impartial agents, which proceed in negative terms (that is, by defining various
preferences, emotions or bits of information that she does not possess or that do
not move her) often, risk picturing the impartial agent as impersonal and even
indifferent

A second problem for the claim that the moral point of view is identical with (some
version of) the impartial point of view – or indeed, for any view which identifies
morality and impartiality in the direct sense – is that it seems plausible to regard
some forms of moral partiality as morally admirable, and perhaps even morally
required

Rather than being put in terms of an impartial point of view, the relation between
morality and impartiality is sometimes made out in terms of an impartial agent or
observer – a person who makes moral judgments without being

influenced by the sort of contaminating biases or prejudices that tend to arise from
the occupation of some particular point of view.

Impartiality, in short, as an obligation of justice, may be said to mean, being

exclusively influenced by the considerations which it is supposed ought to influence
the particular case in hand; and resisting the solicitation of any motives which
prompt to conduct different from what those considerations would dictate

Each individuals requirement interest are equally important and no one should get
special treatment , discrimination is unacceptable arbitrary

Reason and impartiality – moral judgement must be backed by reasons

Morality requires the impartial consideration of each individuals interest

Moral impartiality and equality

The plausibility of identifying the moral point of view with the impartial point of
view, or of defining morality in terms of an impartial observer, presumably lies in
the thought that such views capture the idea that morally speaking, every person is
equally important. Whatever such conceptions may get wrong, then, one thing they
seem to get right is the idea that there is a close and important connection between
moral impartiality and equality.

Some clarification, however, is required. To say that from the impartial point of
view, no one is seen as intrinsically more significant than anyone else, is not to say
that there is no reason whatsoever for which a person might demand more moral
attention or better treatment than others. Many moral theorists, after all, will
suppose that from the impartial point of view, properly conceived, some individuals
will count as more significant, at least in certain ways. William Godwin (Godwin
1793) provides an influential and infamous example. Fenelon, the archbishop of
Cambrai, Godwin writes, may be supposed to be more significant than a mere
hotel cleaner; so in an emergency (Godwin imagines a building on fire) the
archbishop ought to be rescued first. The reason, however, is not that the
archbishop is intrinsically more significant; rather, the claim is grounded on the fact
that the archbishop makes greater contributions to society

impartiality (also called evenhandedness or fair-mindedness) is a principle of justice

holding that decisions should be based on objective criteria, rather than on the
basis of bias, prejudice, or preferring the benefit to one person over another for
improper reasons.
 MORAL COURAGE

LEARNING OBJECTIVES: At the end of the week the learners will be able
to

a) Identify what is moral courage

b) Explain and give examples on how to show moral courage
c) Differentiate ethics from moral courage

Many of us express an admiration for those who exhibit moral courage by

standing up for what they think is right. We may even post quotes like the one
attributed to Nelso Mandela: "Stand up for what you believe in, even if it means
standing alone."
At the same time, our experience is that most people we work with in organizations
have an aversion to taking risks. They “go along to get along” and leave
unchallenged
the prevailing practices and the current “wisdom” found in the workplace. They
avoid disturbing the ethical peace of their peers and supervisors. Moral courage
appears to be more admired than exhibited.

The second dimension of leader courage deals with leaders’ moral strength to
do the right thing in all situations. Moral courage entails a leader’s strength
of character to be willing to incur risk in order to act according to his or her
values and beliefs and stand up to authority to protect his or her soldiers’
welfare or defend his or her decisions. Thus, moral courage enables leaders
to live with integrity, act to uphold the loyalty to their subordinates, and
execute their duties with confidence. Subordinates can trust leaders who have
the courage to act in accordance with their values because they know the
directives they issue will be honest and based on values. Subordinates will
not depend on or trust a leader who possesses good job knowledge, has a
good set of values and beliefs, and has loyalty to subordinates but lacks the
moral courage to put these skills, values, and beliefs into action. Therefore,
a leader’s moral courage provides the force of will to do what is right
regardless of the situation and the costs the leader must incur. In combat,
this is critical because leaders’ moral courage and integrity define the moral
and ethical boundaries that subordinates must operate within
Furthermore, soldiers’ responses indicated they would trust combat leaders
who were not afraid to take a stand for what they believed in, the decisions
they made, or what is the proper way to conduct business. Leaders must
have the moral courage to handle the consequences of taking a stand with the
chain of command to fight for what they believe is right. The following
statements illustrate qualities of moral courage that lead to the development
of trust:

“[I place a high value on a leader’s] strength when it comes to standing up to

the company commander, so that fire-support team members were used
properly and not as machine gunners.” – Staff sergeant, infantry company fire
support noncommissioned office, Qayyarah West Airbase, northern Iraq

“Courage [is important because] a leader must be able to take risks and not
back down from confrontation.” – Private first class, infantry company forward
observer radio operator, Qayyarah West Airbase, northern Iraq

Moral courage is equally important to leadership in business, nonprofit,

political, or any other type of organization. Group members always expect
their leaders to have the moral courage to act in accordance with their own
and the organization’s values. Thus, leaders’ moral courage provides group
members with a sense of confidence that leaders will behave in a moral and
ethical manner and take action to promote the best interests of the
organization and its members. This confidence that leaders have the strength
to act morally and ethically leads to the development of trust, which increases
group members’ willingness to follow

Moral courage looks like:

1. helping someone push a car out of a snowbank, even if it means being late.
2 standing up to a bully on the playground.
3. picking up litter.
4. doing homework or chores without being reminded.
5. refusing to listen to or repeat gossip.
6 .practicing what you preach, even when no-one is looking or knows

One of the best ways to demonstrate moral courage is by inserting yourself

into difficult issues or conversations. If you do not have strong convictions
around your values, it's possible to be perceived as in genuine, weak, or
opportunistic. A good measure of your values are beliefs you express to others
often.
In most books and Wikipedia even denotes Moral courage is the courage to
take action for moral reasons despite the risk of adverse consequences

Courage is required to take action when one has doubts or fears about the
consequences. Moral courage therefore involves deliberation or careful
thought. Reflex action or dogmatic fanaticism do not involve moral courage
because such impulsive actions are not based upon moral reasoning.

Moral courage may also require physical courage when the consequences are
punishment or other bodily peril

Moral courage has been seen as the exemplary modernist form of courage

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BEING ETHICAL AND PRACTICING MORAL

COURAGE

Business ethics is well l understood. Moral courage in the workplace, less so.

Here's how to tell the difference—and flex your moral courage muscles

1. Know your values like the back of your hand.

You can’t have moral courage without values. This is a given. However, it’s
also very difficult to have moral courage if you tuck those values away or don’t
acknowledge them regularly. One of the best ways to demonstrate moral
courage is by inserting yourself into difficult issues or conversations. If you
don’t have strong convictions around your values, it’s possible to be perceived
as ingenuine, weak, or opportunistic.

A good measure of your values are beliefs you express to others often. For
insta nce: “I believe in freedom of expression; therefore, I don’t place any
restrictions on how our employees talk about the company on social media.”
A CEO who often expressed the value of freedom, like this example, would be
well positioned to talk about a violation of someone’s freedom in the local
communit

2. Practice being the hero in the story you want to tell.

Think of some of the great fables, short stories, or novels you’ve read. Now,
envision you are the hero of a journey and put yourself in the story. There is
great power in visualizing
the impact you want to have through moral courage, whether that be reducing
homelessness, improving

Environmental conditions in your community, or being a vocal supporter of

an underdog political candidate. When you put yourself in the story, you can
start to see the things you want to accomplish from a new, empowering
perspective.

3. Be vulnerable in tough conversations.

One mark of moral courage is having the strength to not only participate in
difficult conversations, but also find a way to be vulnerable. Moral courage is
especially demonstrated when you do not know how that difficult conversation
will go. You may have an unpopular opinion. You may not win the argument.
You may not spark the change you are hoping to accomplish. But, by
participating and being vulnerable enough to do so, you are well on your way
to practicing moral courage.

The last word

In the end, what you need to know about moral courage is that it must be
built with intention and by practicing your values. It’s also less about tackling
every single issue and more about waiting for the right conversation or issue
to demonstrate your moral courage.

Also know this: While your opinion, stance, or stand won’t always be popular
or easy, to you, it will always feel right.

Graded essay and Activity

1. What is courage to you?
2. What things in your life require moral courage?
3. Is peer pressure a very strong influence in this school? Does it take
courage to resist peer pressure?
4. What do you think stops people from taking a stand against something
they know is wrong?
5. Is courage something you have to be born with, or can you develop it?

Teaching learning activity :

Interview a friend / relative thru any online platform and asked the
different instances that person underwent pressure and , or fears in life and
how he take courage to cope with problems.