Scribd
Upload
23 views

Lesson For The Week

Rachels argues that morality requires reason and impartiality when making decisions. He defines morality as making decisions based on the best reasons, while giving equal consideration to how the decision will affect all individuals involved. To be moral, one must consider more than just their own interests and look at a decision from other perspectives. Rachels says being impartial often requires overcoming biases to fairly weigh all interests. Only through rational deliberation can people challenge biases and traditions to make decisions that treat all affected groups equally.

Uploaded by

Renalyn Ymasa
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
23 views

Lesson For The Week

Rachels argues that morality requires reason and impartiality when making decisions. He defines morality as making decisions based on the best reasons, while giving equal consideration to how the decision will affect all individuals involved. To be moral, one must consider more than just their own interests and look at a decision from other perspectives. Rachels says being impartial often requires overcoming biases to fairly weigh all interests. Only through rational deliberation can people challenge biases and traditions to make decisions that treat all affected groups equally.

Uploaded by

Renalyn Ymasa
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

IV.

The Minimum Requirement (Elements) of Morality:


Reason and Impartiality

Introduction
Under certain situations, most people would almost always try to get most if not all
the benefits that they could possibly derive. When decisions are to be undertaken, they grab
all advantages for themselves and leave nothing to other people concerned because they
claim it is their right. Oftentimes decisions are one-sided by obstinately believing that we
have all the rights and others do not have. This is a biased or subjective way of looking for
solutions to conflicts or problems. People decide which is more favorable for them taking all
the possible advantages and never consider the interest of others who might be affected by
the solutions arrived at.

The topic on the minimum requirement or conception of morality aims at helping


people to be objective in their decisions. This perspective requires the consideration of the
interests of the people who would be affected by any decision. Very often, an acceptable
decision to all parties that may be involved is difficult to reach because decisions only favor
one party and not the others. For instance, when siblings will have to divide their inheritance,
the eldest desires always to get the larger or the best of it. When dividing a property like land
inheritance, the eldest among the siblings would always want to apportion what is to his or
her advantage and never to consider the interests of the younger siblings. Alternatives in such
a case are never fair and do not represent a good solution. Fairness is difficult to achieve. Let
us give it a try by considering reason and impartiality.

Learning Outcomes
1. Express objectivity in decision making;
2. Analyze moral situations; and
3. Resolve conflicts or problems on the basis of moral obligation.

Presentation of Contents

Definitions do not make one instantly moral but it is by trying to be. To help us
continue in our journey to appropriate what is morally right and avoid what can possibly lead
us to be just the opposite; let us consider the “minimum conception of morality” by James
Rachels (2003). He says: “Morality is, at the very least, the effort to guide one’s conduct by

17 | Self Learning Module in ETHICS


reason – that is, to do what there are the best reasons for doing – while giving equal weight to
the interests of each individual who will be affected by what one does.”

Rachels(2003) mentions two important things; reason and impartiality. When


deciding, he suggests that one should have a good reason or reasons for deciding so. A good
reason is not one that is one-sided or looks only at the interest of the one making the
decision. “When I decide and I look only at the advantages I get from my decision; it does
not make me a better moral agent.” He describes what it takes to be a better moral agent. He
describes an enlightened moral agent as a conscientious moral agent.

A conscientious moral agent according to him is the one who is concerned impartially.
That means someone who considers the interests of everyone affected by what one does or
decides. The conscientious moral agent takes every effort to carefully analyze every fact and
examines their implications and consequences if they will be acted upon; accepts principles of
conducts only after having scrutinized them to be sure that they are acceptable not only for the
one deciding but including everyone who will be affected by the decision later on. Further,
Rachels insists that a conscientious moral agent is the one who is willing “to listen to reason”
which means that the moral agent is willing to make changes or revise earlier conviction. Finally,
the conscientious moral agent is willing to act on the bases of such deliberations.

Summary
Learning to be impartial is too often difficult and painful because it implies the
willingness to give up some of our interests in favor of others’ interests. People cannot
simply give up certain advantages because they have been so used to it that losing them is
unacceptable and would require sometimes a radical change in their life.

For example, giving up a business enterprise which one has been managing for a long
time but legally does not belong to him or to her would not be easy. It would demand radical
shift in one’s life – habits, lifestyle, economic status, associations, security and even one’s
identity.

To be impartial means “free from biases”. It is the readiness to re-examine facts and
data and willingness to re-consider past decisions and adopt new ones. To be able to achieve
this, it would necessitate appealing to reason. Only a rational person would be willing to
change, challenge traditions, consider one’s real duties and obligations and to be selfless in
one’s perspective and in making decisions. Like Rachels’s reflection, it would take a
conscientious moral agent who is willing to “listen to reason” and act accordingly.

You might also like