MINIMUM
REQUIREMENTS FOR
MORALITY
REASON AND IMPARTIALITY
DEFINED AS MINIMUM
REQUIREMENTS FOR MORALITY
REASON AND IMPARTIALITY DEFINE
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
It also spells the difference of moral judgements
from mere expressions of personal preference. In
the case of moral judgments, they require backing
by reasons. Thus, reason commends what it
commends, regardless of our feelings, attitudes,
opinions, and desires.
REASON AND IMPARTIALITY DEFINE
Impartiality involves the idea that each individual’s
interests and point of view are equally important. It 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 the benefit to one person
over another for improper reasons
Impartiality in morality requires that we give
equal and/or adequate consideration to the
interests of all concerned parties. The
principle of impartiality assumes that every
person, generally speaking, is equally
important; that is, no one is seen intrinsically
more significant than anyone else.
THE 7-STEP MORAL REASONING MODEL – SCOTT B.
RAE, PH.D.
Step 1: Gather the Facts
Some moral dilemmas can be resolved just by clarifying the facts of
the case in question. But in more complex cases, gathering the facts
is the indispensable first step prior to any ethical analysis and
reflection on the case. In examining a case, we want to know the
available facts at hand, as well as, any facts presently not known but
that need to be determined. We, thus, have to ask not only “what do
we know?” but also “what do we need to know?” in order to generate
an intelligent ethical decision
THE 7-STEP MORAL REASONING MODEL – SCOTT B.
RAE, PH.D.
Step 2:Determine the Ethical Issues
The moral issues should be correctly stated in terms of competing
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. For instance, 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).
THE 7-STEP MORAL REASONING MODEL – SCOTT B.
RAE, PH.D.
Step3: Identify the Principles that Have a Bearing on the Case
The moral issues should be correctly stated in terms of competing
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. For instance, 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).
THE 7-STEP MORAL REASONING MODEL – SCOTT B.
RAE, PH.D.
Step 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. “Though there will be some alternatives which you will rule
out without much thought, in general, more alternatives that are
listed, the better the chance that your list will include some high
quality ones. In addition, you may come with some very creative
alternatives that you had not considered before” (Rae, n.d.)
THE 7-STEP MORAL REASONING MODEL – SCOTT B.
RAE, PH.D.
Step 5: Compare the alternatives with the principles
This step involves eliminating alternatives, according to the moral
principles that have a bearing on the case. As a matter of fact, the
purpose of this comparison is todetermine whether there is a clear
decision that can be made without further deliberation.
The alternative of "encouraging universal precautions for the sister
but not telling her why" comes very close to satisfying all pertinent
principles.
THE 7-STEP MORAL REASONING MODEL – SCOTT B.
RAE, PH.D.
Step 6: Weigh/ Assess 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.
THE 7-STEP MORAL REASONING MODEL – SCOTT B.
RAE, PH.D.
Step 7: Make decisions
Since deliberation ought not to go on forever, a
decision must be made at some point.
Normally, the decision that is made is one that
possesses the least number of problems or
negative consequences
THANK YOU
