GEC 7: Ethics

1. Title of the Module

Chapter 3: The Act

2. Introduction
This module explores the role of feelings in moral decisions and the disadvantages of
over-reliance on feelings. A lot of people may not be aware when their behavior diverts
from ethical standards because their emotions and moods get the better part them. This
module also provides models in which students can make reasoned and impartial
ethical decisions and understand why reason is not enough in carrying out their ethical
decisions as well. It proposes that the will is as important as reason and developing
moral courage helps towards moral excellence.

3. Learning Outcomes
At the end of this chapter, the student is expected to:
a. explain feelings as obstacles/useful to making right decisions;
b. explain reason and impartiality as minimum requirements of morality;
c. evaluate a moral dilemma using the 7 step moral reasoning model; and
d. explain the significance of moral courage in ethical decision-making.

4. Learning Content
Topics for Chapter 3
Topic 1: Feelings and Moral Decision-Making
Topic 2: Reason and Impartiality as Minimum
Requirements for Morality
Topic 3: Moral Courage

5. Teaching and Learning Activities

a. Activity Sheets
b. Textual Reading
c. Discussion

6. Recommended learning materials and resources for supplementary reading

books

De Guzman, Jens Micah, et al. (2018). Ethics: Principles of ethical behavior in

modern society. Philippines: MUTYA Publishing House, Inc.
Rachel, James and Stuart Rachels. (2018). Elements of moral philosophy, 9th
Ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Rae, Scott B. 2009. Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics. Zondervan ebook.
Rae, Scott B., and Kenman L. Wong. (1996). ―A Model for Moral Decision
Making.‖ Chap. 16 in Beyond Integrity: A Judeo-Christian Approach to
Business Ethics. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
7. Flexible Teaching Learning Modality (FTLM) adopted
Modular Distance Learning (MDL) – Module
Online Distance Learning (ODL) – VideoCon/Google Classroom,
Email, Messenger, Zoom

8. Assessment Task
a. Module Exercises/Quiz
b. Situation Analysis
c. Case Analysis
d. Reflection Paper MODULE CONTENT

Topic 1: Feelings and Ethical Decision-Making

Nominal Duration: 1.5 hours

Learning Outcomes:
Upon completion of this topic, the student must be able to:
1. explain the relationship between feelings and ethical judgments; and 2.
evaluate feelings as both obstacles and useful to making right decisions.

Introduction

Can feelings of happiness, surprise, interest and joy affect our actions to do what is
good? While anger, disgust, contempt, fear, shame, sadness, or self-hostility greatly
influence our actions to do what is bad? Should these positive subjective feelings
matter when we decide to do the right thing? Should we suppress negative ones
instead as they might lead us to wrong decisions?

Feelings and intuitions or what we call as ―moral emotions‖ (n.d.) 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. Experts think it is impossible to make any important
moral judgments without emotions. They are regarded as instinctive and trained
response to moral dilemmas.

There are two related models in ethics that are exclusively based on feelings. The first
one is ethical subjectivism which holds that truth or falsity of ethical propositions is
dependent on the feelings, attitudes, or standards of a person or group of persons.
Since it is based only on feelings, it is biased and contradicts the common
understanding that morality is about objective facts. For example, a gay from the parlor
passes in front of a group of freshmen nearby and one of them smirked:
―homosexuality is wrong!‖ If the student could not even justify his moral judgment and
made that remark out of feelings, then he is both ignorant and biased. The second is
emotivism which is a naïve version of ethical subjectivism. This version says that a
moral belief is true if it is held with sincerity and conviction. To say that an act is right, or
a person is good, is merely to emote, just to express emotions. This makes nonsense of
beliefs. Is it not that a belief is something that is either true or false, but not both? No
one‘s feelings are more justified than another‘s, assuming they are compatible with any
relevant factual information (Martin, 2007: 5-
6).

Feelings cannot be solely relied upon but reason and feelings may complement each
other. Feelings can fuel the accomplishment of goals. They motivate us to act morally.
Traditionally, ethical decision-making process has been understood as an exclusively
mental process; that our feelings have nothing to do with matters of right or wrong and
good or bad, precisely because our emotions are very unstable. Although most existing
researches emphasize the mental elements of decision-making, there are evidences to
support the idea that emotion is also a necessary component leading to ethical
decisions and ethical behavior. The arousal of emotion influences moral reflection and
ultimately moral behavior. Of course, there are other factors also aside from feelings.
Peer influence among college students, for example, is a stronger determinant of
ethical behavior than individual affective reactions. There is a peer-pressure that an
individual seems to be more likely to engage in ethical behavior when his/her peers also
behave ethically (Bratton, 2004; De Guzman, et al., 2018).

Inner-directed negative emotions like guilt, embarrassment, and shame often motivate
people to act ethically. Outer-directed negative emotions, on the other hand, aim to
discipline or punish. For example, people often direct anger, disgust, or contempt at
those who have acted unethically. This discourages others from behaving the same
way. Positive emotions like gratitude and admiration, which people may feel when they
see someone acting with compassion or kindness, can prompt people to help others
too. Emotions evoked by suffering, such as sympathy and empathy, often lead people
to act ethically toward others. Indeed, empathy is the central moral emotion that most
commonly motivates prosocial activity such as altruism, cooperation, and generosity.
So, while we may believe that our moral decisions are influenced most by our
philosophy or religious values, in truth our emotions play a significant role in our ethical
decision-making (Lerner, et al., 2014;
―Moral Emotions‖ (n.d.)).

Topic 2: Reason and Impartiality as Minimum Requirements for Morality

Nominal Duration: 1.5 hours

Learning Outcomes:
Upon completion of this topic, the student must be able to:
1. explain reason and impartiality as minimum requirements for morality; and
2. evaluate a moral dilemma using the 7 step moral reasoning model.

Introduction
 The Greek philosopher Aristotle regarded that human beings have a rational soul that
makes us different with that of animals and plants. Rationality (n.d.) is the capability for
logical thought with the ability to reason towards sound conclusions based on facts and
evidence, draw inferences from situations and circumstances, and make sound well-
reasoned judgments based on factual information. Plants and animals are incapable of
complex reasoning and introspection, much more so in distinguishing good from bad
and right from wrong. A person is called ―rational or reasonable‖ (Korsgaard, n.d.)
when his beliefs and actions conform to the dictates of those principles, or when he is
subjectively guided by them. Reason is also identified with the capacity that enables us
to identify ―reasons,‖ the particular considerations that count in favor of belief or
action. Since human beings are rational, they have ―freewill to strive for perfection‖
(n.d.). By achieving this fulfillment and well-rounded development, they would somehow
attain happiness. It follows that in order to be ethical, an individual should decide on
actions that properly express his rationality.

Moral judgments must be backed by the best arguments or reasons out there, not only
good reasons or better judgments. Our decisions must be guided as much as possible
by reason. The morally right thing to do is always the thing best supported by the
arguments. Morality requires impartiality with regard to those moral agents affected by a
violation of a moral rule. Morality requires the impartial consideration of each
individual's interests. For example, being partial toward friends is not morally allowed.
Impartiality (fair-mindedness) is a principle of justice holding that decisions should be
based on objective criteria, rather than on the basis of bias, self-interest, prejudice, or
preferring the benefit to one person over another for improper reasons. Other elements
of impartiality are accuracy, fairness, balance, context, and no conflicts or
prejudgments. The respect for truth at all costs is necessary (Khatami, 2009; Rachels,
2018).

The minimum conception of morality is: Morality is the effort to guide one‘s conduct by
reason – that is, to do what there are the best reasons for doing – while giving equal
weight to the interest of each individual affected by one‘s decision (Rachels, 2018).

Models in Ethical Decision Making

There are several models of ethical decision making and action. Powers and Vogel
(1980) have identified six aspects that affect and are included into moral reasoning and
decision making: (1) moral imagination; (2) moral identification; (3) moral evaluation; (4)
tolerating moral disagreement and ambiguity; (5) integration of moral competence with
other competencies; (6) a sense of moral obligation and moral motivation. Rest (1994)
proposes that moral decision-making involves four psychological processes: moral
sensitivity, moral judgment, moral motivation/intention, and moral character/action.

Before anything else, one must recognize that there is an ethical issue. Could a
decision or situation be damaging to someone or to some group? Is this issue more
about that what is legal or what is most efficient? If so, how? The decision making
process could be usefully demonstrated in a Seven Step-wise Model of Scott Rae
(2009) presented below.

Situation – "Please Don't Tell!"

A twenty-year-old Hispanic male was brought to a hospital emergency room, having

suffered abdominal injuries due to gunshot wounds obtained in gang violence. He had
no medical insurance, and his stay in the hospital was somewhat shorter than expected
due to his good recovery. Physicians attending to him felt that he could complete his
recovery at home just as easily as in the hospital and he was released after only a few
days in the hospital.

During his stay in the hospital, the patient admitted to his primary physician that he was
HIV positive, having contracted the virus that causes AIDS. This was confirmed by a
blood test administered while he was hospitalized. When he was discharged from the
hospital, the physician recommended that a professional nurse visit him regularly at
home in order to change the bandages on his still substantial wounds and to insure that
an infection did not develop.

Since he had no health insurance he was dependent on Medicaid, a government

program that pays for necessary medical care for those who cannot afford it. However,
Medicaid refused to pay for home nursing care since there was someone already in the
home who was capable of providing the necessary care. That person was the patient's
twenty-two-year-old sister, who was willing to take care of her brother until he was fully
recovered. Their mother had died years ago and the sister was accustomed to
providing care for her younger siblings.

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.

The patient's physician is bound by his code of ethics that places a very high priority on
keeping confidentiality. That is, information about someone's medical condition that he
or she does not want known cannot be divulged by the physician. Some would argue
that the responsibility of confidentiality is even greater with HIV/AIDS since disclosure of
someone's homosexuality normally carries devastating personal consequences for the
individual who is forced "out of the closet."

On the other hand, the patient's sister is putting herself at risk by providing nursing care
for him. Doesn't she have a right to know the risks to which she is subjecting herself,
especially since she willingly volunteered to take care of her brother?
 If you were the physician, what would you do in this case? Would you breach the norm
of confidentiality to protect the patient's sister, or would you keep confidentiality in order
to protect the patient from harm that would come to him from his other family members,
especially his father?

Perhaps as good a question as "what would you do" in this situation is the question,
"how would you decide what to do" in this situation? The process of making a moral
decision can be as important as the decision itself, and many ethical decisions that
people encounter are so complex that it is easy to exhaust oneself talking around the
problem without actually making any progress toward resolving it. The response to
many moral dilemmas is "where do I start?' and the person who is faced with these
decisions often needs direction that will enable him or her to move constructively toward
resolution and "see the forest for the trees."

In order to adequately address the ethical dilemmas that people encounter regularly,
the following is a model that can be used to insure that all the necessary bases are
covered. This is not a formula that will automatically generate the "right" answer to an
ethical problem. Rather it is a guideline that is designed to make sure that all the right
questions are being asked in the process of ethical deliberation.

Given the ethnic and religious diversity of our society, it is important that the model
used for making ethical decisions have "room" in it to accommodate a whole host of
different moral and ethical perspectives. This model is not tied to any one particular
perspective, but can be used comfortably with a variety of cultural, ethnic and religious
backgrounds. This is not a distinctively Christian model, though it is consistent with the
Scripture and any Christian can use Biblical principles in utilizing this model. Take note
though that what makes many moral dilemmas so difficult is that the Scripture does not
speak to the issue as clearly as one would prefer because Scripture has not directly
addressed the issue. More general principles can be brought to bear on the issue at
hand. However, in these instances, there is often disagreement about which Biblical
principles are applicable to the specific issue under discussion. For example, in Case 1
(Please Don't Tell) the physician could invoke the Biblical principle of compassion
toward his patient in refusing to disclose information that would harm him. But at the
same time, he could invoke the same principle of compassion toward the sister in
protecting her from the risk of medical harm. It is not clear that appeal to principles
alone will conclusively resolve this case. Thus, to insist that all ethical dilemmas are
resolved simply by appeal to Biblical principles seems to oversimplify the case.
Certainly many moral questions are resolved conclusively by appeal to Scripture. But
there are other cases in which that does not happen. That is not to say that Scripture is
not sufficient for the believer‘s spiritual life, but that the special revelation of Scripture is
often supplemented by the general revelation of God outside Scripture. This model
makes room for both general and special revelation, and gives each a place in helping
to resolve the difficult moral dilemmas facing people today.

1. Gather the Facts

 Frequently ethical dilemmas can be resolved simply by clarifying the facts of the case
in question. In those cases that prove to be more difficult, gathering the facts is the
essential first step prior to any ethical analysis and reflection on the case. In analyzing a
case, we want to know the available facts at hand as well as any facts currently not
known but that need to be ascertained. Thus one is asking not only "what do we know?"
but also "what do we need to know?" in order to make an intelligent ethical decision.

2. Determine the Ethical Issues

The ethical issue(s) are stated in terms of competing interests. It's these conflicting
interests that actually make for an ethical dilemma. The issues should be presented in a
__________ vs. __________ format in order to reflect the interests that are colliding in
a particular ethical dilemma. For example, many ethical decisions, especially at the end
of a patient's life can be stated in terms of patient autonomy (or the right of the
individual to make his or her own decisions about medical care) vs. the sanctity of life
(or the duty to preserve life). In Case #1 above, the interests of the patient in having the
physician keep confidentiality conflict with the interests of his sister in being protected
from the risk of contracting the HIV virus.

3. What Principles have a bearing on the Case?

In any ethical dilemma, there are certain moral values or principles that are central to
the competing positions being taken. It is critical to identify these principles, and in
some cases, to determine whether some principles are to be weighted more heavily
than others. Clearly Biblical principles will be weighted the most heavily. There may be
other principles that speak to the case that may come from other sources. There may
be Constitutional principles or principles drawn from natural law that supplement the
Biblical principles that come into play here.

4. List the Alternatives

Part of the creative thinking involved in resolving an ethical dilemma involves coming
up with various alternative courses of action. Though there will be some alternatives
which you will rule out without much thought, in general, the more alternatives that are
listed, the better the chance that your list will include some high quality ones. In
addition, you may come up with some very creative alternatives that you had not
considered before.

5. Compare the Alternatives with the Principles

At this point, the task is one of eliminating alternatives according to the moral principles
that have a bearing on the case. In many instances, the case will be resolved at this
point, since the principles will eliminate all alternatives except one. In fact, the purpose
of this comparison is to see if there is a clear decision that can be made without further
deliberation. If a clear decision is not forthcoming, then the next part in the model must
be considered. At the least, some of the alternatives may be eliminated by this step of
comparison.

6. Weigh the Consequences

If the principles do not yield 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 more detrimental than others.

7. Make a Decision
Deliberation cannot go on forever. At some point, a decision must be made. Realize
that one common element to ethical dilemmas is that there are no easy and painless
solutions to them. Frequently, the decision that is made is one that involves the least
number of problems or negative consequences, not one that is devoid of them.

Back to the situation – Please Don't Tell!

Using the model, let's return to the case at hand. This will illustrate how the model is
used and clarify exactly what is meant by each of the elements in the model.

1. Gather the Facts: The relevant facts in this case are as follows:

– The patient is a young man, infected with HIV and an active homosexual.
– He suffered fairly severe abdominal wounds but is recovering well.
– Homosexuality is looked down upon in Hispanic communities.
– The patient has insisted that his physician maintain confidentiality about his HIV
status.
– The patient is afraid of rejection by his father if his homosexuality is discovered, an
understandable fear given the way homosexuality is viewed in the Hispanic
community.
– He was wounded by gunfire in gang violence. It is not clear but is a reasonable
assumption that he is a gang member. As a result, he likely fears rejection and
perhaps retribution from his fellow gang members, especially if they discover that he
is HIV positive.
– He is uninsured and cannot afford home nursing care by a professional.
– Medicaid refuses to pay for professional home nursing care.
– The patient's sister is willing and able to provide the necessary nursing care for her
brother. She is accustomed to providing maternal-like care for her brothers and
sisters.
– The patient has specifically requested that his sister not be told of his HIV status. She
does not know that he is an active homosexual.
– The patient's sister would be changing fairly sizable wound dressings for her brother
and the chances are high that she would come into contact with his HIV infected
blood. The probability of her becoming infected with the virus from this contact is
difficult to predict.

2. Determine the Ethical issue(s)

 The competing interests in this case are those of the sister who will provide the care
and the patient who will receive it. Both have interests in being protected from harm.
The patient fears being harmed in a psycho-social way if his homosexuality and HIV
status were discovered. Thus he has put the physician in a difficult situation by
demanding that his right to confidentiality be kept. Though she does not know it, his
sister fears medical harm due to the risk of contracting the HIV virus from contact with
her brother's blood. This could be stated as a conflict between confidentiality for the
patient vs. the right to know the patient's condition for his sister due to the risk she
would be taking in giving him nursing care. The conflict could be summarized by the
need for patient confidentiality vs. the duty to warn the sister of risk of harm.

3. What Principles have a bearing on the Case?

Two moral principles that speak to this case come out of the way in which the ethical
issue is stated. This case revolves around a conflict of rights, a conflict of duties that the
physician has toward his patient and toward the sister. He is called to exercise
compassion toward both, but what compassion (or the duty to "do no harm") demands
depends on which individual in the case is in view. Thus two principles are paramount.
First is the widely recognized principle that patients have a right to have their medical
information kept confidential, particularly the information that could be used to harm
them if it were disclosed. But a second principle that comes into play is the duty of the
physician to warn interested parties other than the patient if they are at risk of imminent
and substantial harm. One of the difficult aspects of any ethical decision is knowing
what weight to give the principles that are relevant to the case. Here, the principle of
confidentiality is considered virtually sacred in the medical profession and most
physicians will argue that it is necessary to keep confidentiality if patients are to trust
their physicians and continue coming for treatment. But confidentiality is often
considered subordinate to the duty to warn someone who will likely be harmed if that
information is not disclosed. For example, if a psychologist believes that his patient will
kill his wife, or beat her severely, he has a moral obligation to inform the wife that she is
in danger from her husband. The duty to warn someone from imminent and severe
harm is usually considered a more heavily weighted principle than confidentiality in
cases like these.

The key question here in weighting the principles of confidentiality and the duty to warn
(both fulfilling the Biblical notion of compassion toward those in need of it) is the degree
of risk that the patient's sister is taking by providing nursing care for her brother. If the
risk is not substantial, then that weights confidentiality a bit more heavily. But if the risk
is significant, then the duty to warn is the more heavily weighted principle. This is
particularly so given the fact that the sister has volunteered to perform a very self-
sacrificing service for her brother. Some would argue that her altruism is an additional
factor that weights the duty to warn principle more heavily. Others would suggest that
his contracting HIV is an example of "reaping what one sows," and that minimizes
consideration of the patient's desire for confidentiality. An additional factor that should
be figured into the deliberation is that the risk to the patient, though it may have a higher
probability of happening, is not as severe as the risk to the sister. After all, if the worst
case scenario happened to the patient, his father would disown him and the gang would
throw him out (though their action could be more severe than that). He would recover
from all of that. But if his sister contracted HIV, she would not recover from that. Though
the probability of the worst case scenario is higher for the patient, the results of the
worst case are clearly higher for the sister.

4. List the Alternatives

In this case, there are a number of viable alternatives that involve compromise on
either the patient's part or his sister's. However, there are two alternatives that do not
involve compromise and they each reflect a weighting of the principles.
One alternative would be to tell the sister that her brother is HIV positive. This
alternative comes out of taking the duty to warn principle as higher priority. On the other
hand, a second alternative is to refuse to tell her that information, upholding the
patient's request for confidentiality and taking the confidentiality principle as the one that
carries the most weight. However, there are other alternatives. For example, the
physician could warn the patient's sister in general terms about taking appropriate
precautions for caring for these types of wounds. She is to wear gloves and even a
mask at all times when handling the bandages. Should she get any blood on her
clothes or body, she is to wash immediately with a disinfectant soap. In other words,
she is to take universal precautions that any medical professional routinely takes in
caring for patients. A further alternative is to request that the patient inform his sister of
his condition. He could then request that she not tell any other family member or any or
his friends. If he refused, then the next step might be to say to him in effect, "If you don't
tell her, I will."

5. Compare Alternatives with Principles

In many cases, the principles resolve the case. Depending on how one assesses the
relative weight of the principles, which may be the case here. In fact, it may be that the
alternative of encouraging universal precautions for the sister but not telling her why,
comes very close to satisfying all the relevant principles. But certainly there are
questions about the adequacy of those precautions. Will she follow them, or treat them
casually? However, assume for the moment that appeal to principles does not resolve
the dilemma.

6. Assess the Consequences

Here the task is to take the viable alternatives that attempt to predict what the likely
consequences (both positive and negative) of each would be. In addition, one should try
to estimate roughly how beneficial are the positive consequences and how severe the
negative ones are, since some consequences are clearly more substantial than others.
 In many cases, when two opposing alternatives are presented, the consequences of
one are the mirror image of the other. This is the case here with the alternatives of
telling that sister, or refusing to tell her of her brother's HIV status.

In the first alternative, that of telling the sister (or insisting that the patient tells his
sister), the likely consequences include the following:

The sister would be properly warned about the risks of taking care of her brother,
minimizing the risk of her contracting HIV, and saving her from the risk of developing a
fatal illness. The brother's HIV status would be out in the open, leaving family and gang
friends to draw their own conclusions about his homosexuality. Should they draw the
right conclusion, which is likely, he suffers significant psychosocial harm from his gang
members, and possibly (though not certainly) from his family.

Trust with the physician and the patient suffers and he may refuse to see that
physician, or any other one again until a dire medical emergency. This would be
unfortunate since due to his HIV status, he will need on going medical care. But if the
physician refuses to disclose the information, the following may be expected as the
likely consequences:

The sister would not know about the risks she is taking, making her vulnerable to
contracting an infection for which there is no cure. The degree of risk that she is taking
is open to debate, but some would argue that if the degree of risk is any more than
minimal, that justifies warning her since the virus produces a fatal disease.

The patient's HIV status is a well-kept secret, as his homosexuality. But it is not likely
that either his HIV status or his homosexuality can be kept a secret forever, since as
HIV develops into full-blown AIDS, both are likely to come out at some point in the
future.

Trust between the physician and patient is maintained. If the alternative of telling the
sister to take general precautions is taken, the following are the likely consequences:
She may exercise appropriate caution in taking care of her brother, but she may not.
She may treat the precautions casually and unknowingly put herself at risk. If the
physician tells her about the precautions in very strong terms to insure her compliance
with them, that may start her asking questions about why the doctor was so insistent on
her following his precautions. In fact, one of the motives of the physician might be to
nudge her toward asking some of those questions, of her brother, to further minimize
the risk of contracting HIV.

In general, the patient's HIV status and homosexual orientation are kept secret, and
confidentiality is honored, but the question of how long it will remain a secret is
unknown and it is likely that it will become known eventually. Trust with the physician
and patient is maintained. However, if the sister is nudged to ask her brother some
pressing questions about why these precautions are so important, he may conclude
that the physician has prompted his sister to ask these questions, leaving him feeling
betrayed.

7. Make a Decision

What would you decide in this case? Which principles are the weightiest? Are there
others that you would include? Which alternatives are the most viable? Are there others
that you would suggest? Which consequences seem to you the most severe? Are there
others that you think will occur? It is important to realize that at some point you must
stop deliberating and make a decision, as uncomfortable as that may be.

Topic 3: Moral Courage

Nominal Duration: 1.5 hours

Learning Outcomes:
Upon completion of this topic, the student must be able to:
1. explain the significance of moral courage in ethical decision-making.

Reason, Will and Moral Courage in Ethics

Reason in ethics is the application of critical analysis to specific events to determine

what is right or wrong and what people ought to do in a particular situation while will is
the faculty of the mind that chooses a desire among the different desires present. Will is
guided by reason, where, as determined by reason, action is performed according to
rational requirements. The best ethical decision which is argued in the most rational
way is still incomplete without its execution. That is why moral courage is important and
the will enables the person to act deliberately and courageously (Gambrell, 2015;
Rowan, 2015).

Osswald, S. et al. (2010) describes moral courage as a prosocial behavior with high
social costs and no (or rare) direct rewards for the person. There are situations that
demand a morally courageous intervention: instances of injustice happen, human rights
are violated, persons are treated unfairly and in a degrading manner, or nature and
cultural assets are in danger. These situations are about discrimination against
foreigners or other minorities, violence and aggression against weaker individuals,
sexual harassment or abuse, mobbing, or illegal business practices.

Lopez, O‘Byrne, and Petersen (2003) defined moral courage as ―the expression of
personal views and values in the face of dissension and rejection‖ (p. 187) and ―when
an individual stands up to someone with power over him or her (e.g., boss) for the
greater good‖ (p. 187). Thus, often an imbalance of power exists with a disadvantage
on the side of the person who acts morally courageously. Moral courage situations
(compared with other situations that demand prosocial behavior) are also characterized
by a specific social constellation: There are not only one or more victims but also one or
more perpetrators who discriminate against the victim(s) or act unfairly or threateningly,
and the potential helper has to deal with the perpetrators to act prosocially. Most of the
social costs moral courage entails emanate from the confrontation with the perpetrators.

Greitemeyer, Fischer, Kastenmueller, and Frey (2006) defined moral courage as brave
behavior accompanied by anger and indignation, which intends to enforce societal and
ethical norms without considering one‘s own social costs. Social costs (i.e., negative
social consequences) distinguish moral courage from other prosocial behaviors.

Activity 3: Form a group of 5 members. Read the situation below and discuss how you
think you can help Jonas act with moral courage.

Jonas has just renewed his contract as a janitor with a job order status at a well-known
college in his province. He is just a senior high school graduate and has a five month
old baby to take care of. His peers respected him and described him as an honest and
hardworking person with strong work values. After almost four semesters, he has noted
a behavior in the work setting that concerned him and conflicted with his ethical
principles. He has been observing his supervisor falsifying daily time records of fellow
administrative aides and very lax inspections all around the campus. Although all
janitors have their own territories to clean and they work independently, there are
instances that they all work together in improving the landscapes of the campus. When
Jonas brought this behavior to the attention of some senior janitors, they explained that
they experienced retaliation if they even mentioned this misconduct. Anyway, all of
them are benefiting from it. After much pondering, Jonas felt that he has an ethical
responsibility to take action and bring this matter to the attention of the administration.
As soon as someone quietly brought this to the supervisor, the supervisor immediately
changed the work schedule of Jonas unfairly and added more loads of work for him. As
a result, he has to work on some Saturdays just to finish his job. The supervisor also set
unreasonable deadlines, and discouraged him opportunities for social gatherings
among them after office hours. What will he do?

Student Activity 4: Form a group with 5 members in each group. Choose one of the
topics below, make a script or a case, and make a good rational moral decision. Please
see attach rubric. (50 points)
1. Injustice
2. Violation Human Rights
3. Unfair Treatment (and in degrading manner)
4. Illegal business practice
5. Nature and cultural assets are in danger.