UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS

College of Arts and Sciences

MODULE 4 in Soc Sci 101N (Ethics)

TOPIC 5
FEELINGS AND DECISION-MAKING

OBJECTIVES:
At the end of the topic, students are expected to:
1) Appraise and analyze their feelings in personal experiences
2) Compare reasonable and emotional responses.
3) Compare and contrast Ethical Subjectivism and Emotivism
4) Apply the principles of Ethical Subjectivism and Emotivism

TEACHING-LEARNING ACTIVITY/LESSON PROPER:

FEELINGS AND DECISION-MAKING
According to Ells (2014), emotion is a response to stimuli based on past
experiences which is made instinctively while reason is a form of personal
justification which changes from person to person based on their own
ethical and moral code, as well as prior experience. Some ethicists believe
that ethics is also a matter of emotion. They hold the moral judgment as
that are even deemed by some as instinctive and trained response to
moral dilemmas (De Guzman et al. 2017). Emotions is the result of logical
analysis through which we first analyse someone’s behaviour, make an
appropriate judgment, and then feel whichever is called for, respect or
contempt (Pillemer & Wheeler, 2010).
Researchers (and some philosophers) now see emotion and reason as
tightly intertwined. Emotion and reason are jointly at work when we judge
the conduct of others or make choices ourselves. A cognitive deficit of
either type can impair our decision-making capacity about all manner of
things, including moral judgments. People who suffer certain kinds of brain
injuries or lesions, for example, retain the intellectual ability to understand
alternative courses of action, nevertheless are unable to make up their own
minds, both literally and figuratively. Reading a menu apparently is one
thing, but choosing among items involves weighing likes, dislikes, objectives,
and values. These necessarily involve subjective judgments (Pillemer &
Wheeler, 2010).
Some hold that reason and emotion are not really opposite. Both
abstract inference and emotional intuitions or instincts are seen as having
relative roles in ethical thinking. For one thing, feelings or emotions are said
to be judgments about the accomplishment of one’s goals. Emotions, it is
thus concluded, can be rational in being based at least sometimes on
good judgments about how well a circumstance or agent accomplishes
appropriate objectives. Feelings are also visceral or instinctual by providing
motivations to act morally (De Guzman et al. 2017).
Reason when removed from emotion, allows a person to make
conscious decisions based on fact, with no references to personal
involvement. The use of reason as a way of knowing, allows for the knower
to see the consequences of their actions through-out the decision-making
process. Also, there are limitations to decisions made based on reason
alone, perception of situations is not questioned as it may be with an
emotional decision (Ells, 2014).

FEELING-BASED THEORIES IN ETHICS

There are at least two theories in ethics that gives focus on the role of
feelings on morality. They are (1) Ethical Subjectivism and (2) Emotivism (De
Guzman et al. 2017).
1. Ethical Subjectivism. This theory basically utter runs contrary to the
principle that there is objectivity in morality. Fundamentally a meta-
ethically theory, it is not about what things are good and what are things
are bad. It does not tell how we should live or what moral norms we should
practice. Instead, it is a theory about the nature or moral judgments (De
Guzman et al. 2017).
In the article “Basics of Philosophy,” Ethical Subjectivism holds that there
are no objective moral properties and that ethical statements are in fact
arbitrary because they do not express immutable truths. Instead, moral
statements are made true or false by the attitudes and/or conventions of
the observers, and any ethical sentence just implies an attitude, opinion,
personal preference or feeling held by someone. Thus, for a statement to
be considered morally right merely means that it is met with approval by
the person of interest. Another way of looking at this is that judgments about
human conduct are shaped by, and in many ways limited to, perception.
As cited in the article “Basics of Philosophy,” there are several different
variants which can be considered under the heading of Ethical
Subjectivism:
• Simple Subjectivism: the view (largely as described above) that
ethical statements reflect sentiments, personal preferences and
feelings rather than objective facts.
• Individualist Subjectivism: the view (originally put forward by
Protagoras) that there are as many distinct scales of good and evil
as there are individuals in the world. It is effectively a form of Egoism,
which maintains that every human being ought to pursue what is in
his or her self-interest exclusively.
• Moral Relativism (or Ethical Relativism): the view that for a thing to
be morally right is for it to be approved of by society, leading to the
conclusion that different things are right for people in different
societies and different periods in history.
• Ideal Observer Theory: the view that what is right is determined by
the attitudes that a hypothetical ideal observer (a being who is
perfectly rational, imaginative and informed) would have.
2. Emotivism. As cited in the “Emotive Theory of Ethics” The term emotivism
refers to a theory about moral judgments, sentences, words, and speech
acts; it is sometimes also extended to cover aesthetic and other nonmoral
forms of evaluation. Although sometimes used to refer to the entire genus,
strictly speaking emotivism is the name of only the earliest version of ethical
noncognitivism (also known as expressivism and nondescriptivism).
Emotivism is actually the most popular form of non-cognitivism, the
meta-ethical theory that claims that ethical sentences do not convey
authentic propositions. Moral judgments, according to Emotivism, are not
statements of fact but are mere expressions of the emotions of the speaker
especially since they are usually feelings—based (De Guzman et al. 2017).
To understand how the theory views moral judgments, it would help to
note that language is used in a variety of ways. Principally, language is used
to state facts or what we believe to be facts. But there are other purposes
for which language may be used like utterance or command. The purposes
of utterances are (1) they are used as means of influencing other’s behavior
and (2) moral sentences are used to expresses (not report) the speaker’s
attitude (De Guzman et al. 2017).
As cited in the article “Emotivism,” Emotivists believe that moral
language expresses emotions and tries to influence others; it has no
cognitive content. If I say homosexuality is evil, I’m just expressing my feeling
that homosexuality is disgusting! I am expressing my emotions and, at the
same time, trying to influence you to dislike homosexuality. The same
analysis applies to any moral judgment. If I say that capital punishment is
wrong, I’m just expressing my dislike for it and trying to get you to agree with
me. I might as well have said capital punishment while shaking my head
and rolling my eyes. And if I say that Stalin or Cheney were bad men—which
they were—I’m merely trying to get you to agree with what I’m really
saying.

CRITICISMS ON ETHICAL SUBJECTIVISM AND EMOTIVISM

Stated in the article “Subjectivism,” subjectivism implies the moral
statements are less significant than most people think they are – this may of
course be true without rendering moral statement insignificant. More so,
Ethical Subjectivism has implications that are contrary to what we believe
about the nature of moral judgments.it also implies that each of us is
infallible so as long as we are honestly expressing our respective feelings
about moral issues. Furthermore, it cannot account for the fact of
disagreement in Ethics. Finally, the theory could also have dangerous
implications in moral education (De Guzman et al. 2017).
As cited in the article “Emotivism,” emotivism presupposes that moral
disagreements are incapable of being resolved by rational discourse. There
is no way to resolve our attitudinal disagreements unless we are persuasive
enough (or violent enough). But we have already seen that there’s another
way to persuade—using reason to support our position. We can provide
good reasons why x is right or x is wrong. If we appeal to reason, we have
discovered a way to resolve our disputes that other than by shouting or
beating others into submission. And if reason plays a role in ethics, then
there is truth or falsity about ethical judgments.
FEELINGS CAN HELP IN MAKING THE RIGHT DECISION
According to Pillemer & Wheeler (2010), moral development may rest in
our ability to be mindful of our own feelings, thoughts, and values—and the
context in which we are functioning. As we ponder decisions, and more
fundamentally, our principles, Pillemer & Wheeler (2010), enumerated some
precepts to bear mind. Among them are:
1. Don’t accept the problem as given. How choices are framed can
sway your choices in ways that may contradict your core beliefs.
(Think of the classic experiment about health care policy.) Generate
multiple options and assess them against one another instead of
considering them in isolation.

2. Listen to both your heart and head. Issues of right and wrong matter
deeply to us, as they should. Twinges of disgust or shame may be
internal signals that we are nearing the outer bounds of acceptable
behaviour. But we should also reflect on the sources of our feelings,
be they negative or positive, as they may be triggered by
associations that have nothing to do with the matter at hand.

3. Watch your language. How we name things exposes (or masks) the
nature of our actions and their consequences. Firings become
layoffs, layoffs become downsizing, and downsizing becomes right-
sizing. The action may be unavoidable, but we should not sugar-
coat the fact that people who once worked with or for us are now
jobless.

4. Take special care in dimly lit places. Your actions—and ultimately

even your values—are influenced by the company you keep.

5. Be modest about your virtue. Most of us believe that we are more

ethical than are others. Countless experiments and real-life
examples, however, should remind us that people who are most self-
righteous may be most likely to slip.

6. Understand why others transgress. Some lapses may be due to moral

failure, but others can be caused by external factors that have little
to do with their fundamental nature. Luck plays a role in regard to
how people are tested and what resources they can draw upon.
Refrain from judging a person’s core character, positively or
negatively, on the basis of a single event.

7. Don’t give up on yourself (or on others). An ancient proverb says,

“Every saint has a past. Every sinner has a future.” Honest reflection
about the past, coupled with a measure of humility, can serve as
foundation for leading a responsible life going forward.
In the end, morality is not merely—or even principally—determining the
right thing to do in specific instances, rather it entails who we want to be
and what kind of life we want to lead (Pillemer & Wheeler, 2010).
THE 7-STEP MORAL REASONING
To ensure the reasonableness and neutrality of moral decisions, it is good
to follow the seven-step moral reasoning model. These steps can serve as
a guide in making best choices in decision makings.
1. Stop and think. Before making any decisions, it is nice to take a moment
to think about the following:
a. Situation itself
b. Your role in the situation
c. Other internal/ external factors such as
• People who might get involved in the result of the decision
• Potential effects of the decision

2. Clarify Goals. In a decision making, it is essential to determine your goals

both short-term and long-term goals. Short-term goals are those that
need to be accomplished right after or immediately after a decision is
made. A long-term goal is that which the result may come out after
some times. It is important because that is going to be the basis of what
one wishes to accomplish. Sometimes, it requires a sacrifice for someone
just to achieve his or her goal whether short or long term one.

3. Determine facts. Make sure that that all essential information is

considered before you make a decision. To determine the facts, solve
first what you know, then what do you still need to know. Have a heart
to accept other information about the subject of your decision-making
process and make it sure that facts are reliable and credible since these
facts would be the basis of your decision. In addition:
a. Consider the reliability and credibility of the people providing the
facts.
b. Consider the basis of the supposed facts. Evaluate on the basis
of honesty, accuracy, and memory.

4. Develop options. Once you know what you the goals are and facts are
well considered already, then you can make a list of actions that are
possibly be your options. If its about life decision, you can make talk to
someone you trust most so you can broaden your perspective and think
of new choices. If you can think of only one or two choices, you are
probably not thinking hard enough.

5. Consider consequences. After developing options which are possibly

your basis of action, you must consider consequences of each option.
Filter your choices to determine if any of your options will violate any
ethical considerations, and then omit unethical options. Think of its long
long-term consequences and act in accordance to the spirit of fairness
and justice. Identify who will be affected by your decision and how the
decision is a likely to affect them.

6. Choose. After consideration of all the consequences from the options,

make a decision now. If you are doubtful of your choice, try the
following:
 a. Talk to people whom you trust.
b. Think of someone who you think has the character of good
decision maker.
c. If people around you found out your decision, would you be
comfortable and proud?
d. Follow the Golder Rule: treat others the way you want to be
treated, and keep your promises.

7. Monitor and modify. Ethical decision makers monitor the effect of their
decisions and are willing to modify their decision. Though it takes a lot
of humility and courage to do such, it is necessary if the decision had
been made has a lot of ethical considerations. Do not hesitate to revise
your decisions in light of new developments in the situation.

Enhancement Activity/Outcome:

1. Case analysis. Analyse the following cases with your group members and
justify your answer based on what you have learned from the topic.

a) You are a high-ranking public health official who must decide how
to respond in the face of an epidemic that will cost 600 lives if
nothing is done. You only have two alternatives: Option A which will
result in 200 lives being saved or Option B with a 1/3 chance that
everyone would be saved. Which would you choose?
b) Dan, a student council president, often picks topics for discussion
that appeal to both professors and students in order to stimulate
discussion. Would you say that his conduct is highly immoral, not
immoral at all, or someplace in between?
c) What if instead of throwing the switch, the only way for you to stop
the train and save the five is pushing a 300-pound man on to the
tracks?

2. Recall a news report that you have seen recently. Illustrate your feelings as
instinctive response to the news.

_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________