27

MODULE 2

Part 1- The Agent

Part 2 – The Act

 INTRODUCTION

The first module discussed to us the basic concepts of this course. In

this module, we will be learning other ethical concepts which will focus on
the two main factors in learning Ethics: The Agent, and The Act. We will be
exploring who will be the ethical agent and likewise, which actions are
considered to be ethical.

We will also be learning how moral decision making takes place if a

moral agent is under a dilemma.

This module addresses the following questions:

1. How does culture shape moral behavior?
2. Why should culture not be the determinant of moral values?
3. Is there a Filipino understanding of right and wrong?
4. How do we decide morally?

OBJECTIVES

After studying the module, you should be able to:

1. Articulate what culture means

2. Attribute facets of personal behavior to culture
3. Recognize differences in moral behavior of different cultures
4. Check real-life cases against a 7-Step model that uses reason and
impartiality.

 DIRECTIONS/ MODULE ORGANIZER

There are four lessons in this module. Read each lesson carefully then
answer the exercises/activities to find out how much you have benefited from
it. Work on these exercises carefully and submit your output to your
instructor.

In case you encounter difficulty, discuss this with your instructor during
the face-to-face meeting. If not contact your tutor at
[email protected].

Good luck and happy reading!!!

GECC 104 - ETHICS Module 1

 28

Lesson 1

 The Challenge of Cultural Relativism

Learning Outcomes:
1. To explain the relationship between culture and behavior
2. Assert that there is a universal values

The Issue of Cultural Relativism (James Rachels)

Moral beliefs and practices of people are greatly affected by the environment
that surrounds them. How the individual was brought up and the social and
cultural elements that the person was exposed to contribute to his/her
understanding and judgment of what is right and what is wrong. Can we
conclude that morality is relative, that is, what is right varies from one person
to another or from one culture to another? Or is morality objective, that is,
what is right is based on a universal principle that applies to all people
regardless of culture, religion, or ideology?

Cultural relativists on Morality

“Different cultures have different moral codes” - no universal truths?

1. Different societies have different moral Codes.
2. The moral code of a society determines what is right within that society.
3. There is no objective standard that can be used to judge one society’s
code as better than others.
4. The moral code of our own society has no special status.
5. It is arrogant for us to judge other cultures. We should always be tolerant
of them.

GECC 104 - ETHICS Module 1

 29

The Cultural Differences argument

Cultural Relativists often employ a certain form of argument starting with

facts about cultures and ending with conclusion about morality:
a. Greeks believed that it was wrong to eat the dead, whereas the
Callatians believed it was right to eat the dead,
b. Therefore, eating the dead is neither objectively right nor objectively
wrong. It is merely a matter of opinion which varies from culture to
culture.

Or:
a. The Eskimos saw nothing wrong with infanticide, whereas Americans
believed infanticide is immoral,
b. Therefore, infanticide is neither objectively right nor objectively
wrong

These are arguments of one fundamental idea. They are both examples of a
general argument which says:
1. Different cultures have different moral codes.
2. Therefore, there is no objective truth in morality. Right and wrong are
only matters of opinion, and opinions vary from culture to culture.

The Consequences of Cultural Relativism (What if Cultural Relativism is

true?)
1. We could no longer say that the customs of other societies are morally
inferior to our own.
2. We could no longer criticize the code of our own country.
3. The idea of moral progress is called into doubt.

There is Universal Values

Consider a culture in which people believe it is wrong to eat cows. This may
be a poor culture, in which there is not enough food, yet, the cows are
prohibited to be butchered. Such a society would appear to have values very
different from our own. Shall we say that their values differ from ours? No,
the difference lies in our belief system, not in our values system.

Many factors work together to produce the customs of a society. Not only are
the society’s values important, but so are its religious beliefs, factual beliefs,
and physical environment. Thus, we cannot conclude that two societies differ
in values just because they differ in custom.

Thus, some values are shared by all cultures:

• Value on Honesty
• Prohibition against murder
• Value on human happiness (Culture-independent moral standard)

GECC 104 - ETHICS Module 1

 30

Learning Activity:

Cite 3 indigenous cultures in our country. Identify the similarities and

differences of their customs and traditions in terms of the following:

1. Clothing
2. Food preparation
3. Family and marriage

In not more than 5 Sentences, answer the following questions:

1. Was there any violation of moral standards in how they practice their
customs and traditions?
2. Was there any set of values that these different cultures share? List at
least 5.

GECC 104 - ETHICS Module 1

 31

Lesson 2

 Strengths and Weaknesses of the

Filipino Character

Learning Outcomes:

1. Analyze crucial qualities of the Filipino moral identity in your own

moral experiences.
2. Evaluate elements of morality that need to be changed.

Filipino Values and Moral Development

A Moral Recovery Program: Building a People--Building a Nation by

Patricia Licuanan

The task of building our nation is an awesome one. There is need for economic
recovery. There is need to re-establish democratic institutions and to achieve
the goals of peace and genuine social justice. Along with these goals, there
is a need as well to build ourselves as a people. There is need to change
structures and to change people.

Building a people means eliminating our weaknesses and developing our

strengths; this starts with the analysis, understanding, and appreciation of
these strengths and weaknesses. We must take a good look at ourselves--
objectively with scientific detachment, but also emotionally (i.e., lovingly)
and, when appropriate, with disgust. We must view ourselves as might a lover
viewing a loved one but also as might a judge capable of a harsh verdict. We
must not be self-flagellating, but neither can we afford to be defensive.

Strengths Of The Filipino Character

 Pakikipagkapwa-Tao (regard for others).

 Family Orientation
 Joy and Humor
 Flexibility, Adaptability and Creativity
 Hard work and Industry
 Faith and Religiosity
 Ability to Survive

Weaknesses Of The Filipino Character

 Extreme Personalism
 Extreme Family-Centeredness
 Lack of Discipline
 Passivity and Lack of Initiative

GECC 104 - ETHICS Module 1

 32

 Colonial Mentality
 Kanya-Kanya Syndrome
 Lack of Self-Analysis and Self-Reflection

The Many Faces Of The Filipino Character

Many of our strong points are also the sources of our weakness.

As a people, we are person-oriented, and relationships with others are a very

important part of our lives. Thus, we are capable of much caring and concern
for others. On the other hand, in the extreme our person orientation leads to
lack of objectivity and a disregard for universal rules and procedures so that
everyone, regardless of our relationship with them, is treated equally. Our
person orientation leads us to be concerned for people, and yet unfair to
some.

Our family orientation is both a strength and a weakness, giving us a sense of

rootedness and security, both very essential to any form of reaching out to
others. At the same time, it develops in us an in-group orientation that
prevents us from reaching out beyond the family to the larger community and
the nation.

Our flexibility, adaptability and creativity is a strength that allows us to

adjust to any set of circumstances and to make the best of the situation. But
this ability to "play things by ear" leads us to compromise on the precision and
discipline necessary to accomplish many work-oriented goals.

Our sense of joy and humor serves us well in difficult times. It makes life more
pleasant, but serious problems do need serious analysis, and humor can also
be destructive.

Our faith in God and our religiosity are sources of strength and courage, but
they also lead to an external orientation that keeps us passive and dependent
on forces outside ourselves.

There are other contradictions in the many faces of the Filipino. We

find pakikipagkapwa-tao and the kanya-kanya mentality living comfortably
together in us. We are other-oriented and capable of great empathy; and yet
we are self-serving, envious of others, and unconstructively critical of one
another.

We also find the Filipino described alternately as hardworking and lazy.

Indeed we see that we are capable of working long and hard at any job.
However, our casual work ethic as well as our basic passivity in the work
setting also is apparent as we wait for orders and instructions rather than
taking the initiative.

GECC 104 - ETHICS Module 1

 33

 Learning Activity:

Create a short documentary in your own choice of media, (video or still

shots, newspaper clippings, or from internet articles) depicting the strengths
and weaknesses of the Filipino Character.

Warning:

If there is a need for you to do some task outside your home, please limit
yourself with in your own community only. Always follow the health
protocol. Wear your face masks and face shields all the time, avoid mingling
with the crowd as much as possible.

GECC 104 - ETHICS Module 1

 34

Lesson 3

 Developing Moral Character and

Stages of Moral Development

Learning Outcomes:

1. Recall defining moments in your moral formation.

2. Explain the relationship between individual acts and character.
3. Articulate and identify each stage of moral development.

Developing Virtue as a Habit

Moral character refers to the existence or lack of virtues such as integrity,

courage, fortitude, honesty, and loyalty. A certain person has a good moral
character if he/she is a good person and a good citizen with a sound moral
stature.

Etymology
According to the Greeks, ‘charakter’ is a mark impressed on a coin. A
distinct mark by which one thing was distinguished from others, an
assemblage of qualities that distinguish one person from another.

In its modern usage, ‘character’ stresses on “individuality”. It is the

merging of “character and personality”; mannerisms, social gestures, habit
of dress, and the like.

Linguistic History
According to the Book II of Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle tells us that
there are two distinct of human excellences:
1. Excellences of thought
2. Excellences of character
Aristotle used ‘ethikai arethai’ for excellences of character and
translated as ‘moral virtues’ and ‘moral excellences’. When we speak of a
‘virtue’ or an excellence of moral character, it is not on mere singularity or
individuality, but on the blend of qualities that make a person ethically
admirable.

Therefore, philosophically speaking, ‘moral character’ refers to having or

lacking moral virtue. If one lacks virtue, the moral agent may have any of the
moral vices, or the agent may be marked by the condition somewhere in
between virtue and vice.

Philosophers think that moral character traits have a fewer evaluative

dimension, that is, they involve a normative judgment (desirable or
undesirable). The agent is morally responsible for having the moral character

GECC 104 - ETHICS Module 1

 35

trait itself or for the outcome of that trait. Thus, a certain moral character
trait is a trait for which the agent is morally responsible.

Acts and Character: The Circular Relationship

There is a circular relationship between acts that build character and moral
character itself. Not all acts help to build moral character, but those acts
coming from moral character matter. A person’s actions determine his/her
moral character, but moral character itself generates acts that help in
developing either virtue or vice.

Moral Character as Dispositions

Dispositions – particular kinds of properties or characteristics that objects

can possess.
• The moral character traits that constitute a person’s moral character
are understood as behavioral and affective disposition
• Moral character traits are those dispositions of character for which it
is suitable to hold agents morally responsible.

Virtue – is a moral character trait for which a person is deserving of a positive

reactive attitude (praise or gratitude)
Vice – a moral character trait for which the agent is deserving of a negative
reactive attitude (resentment or blame)

In other words, a good moral character is a disposition to do virtuous deeds.

In the opposite, a bad moral character is a disposition to vicious acts.

Stages of Moral Development

Moral development should be understood in the sense of human flourishing.

This is attained by the habitual practice of moral and intellectual excellences,
or ‘virtues’. Developing morally also brings about self-realization and
happiness, acting in line with virtues is also acting in accordance with reason.

American psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg (1927-1987) is best known for his

theory of the stages of moral development. Kohlberg employed Swiss clinical
psychologist Jean Piaget’s (1896-1980) story telling techniques involving
moral dilemmas, with options to be considered, for example, between the
rights of some authority and the needs of some deserving person who is being
unfairly treated. One of his best known stories is the Heinz’s dilemma:

In Europe, a woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one
drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist
in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the
druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to make. He paid $200 for
the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's
husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only

GECC 104 - ETHICS Module 1

 36

get together about $ 1,000 which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his
wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist
said: "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it.” So Heinz got
desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug-for his wife. Should the
husband have done that? (Kohlberg, 1963, p. 19)

Kohlberg’s questions:
1. Should Heinz have stolen the drug?
2. Would it change anything if Heinz did not love his wife?
3. What if the dying person was a stranger, would it make any difference?
4. Should the police arrest the chemist for murder if the woman died?

These questions was ask to children of various ages and hoped to discern the
ways in which moral reasoning developed as individuals grew older. The
emphasis here is not on whether one answers "yes" or "no", or whether the
children judged the action as right or wrong, but rather the reasoning behind
the answer.

Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development

Level I
Pre-Conventional Morality
This is the stage that all young children start at
Obedience
(and a few adults remain in). Rules are seen as
or
Stage 1 being fixed and absolute. Obeying the rules is
Punishment
important because it means avoiding
Orientation
punishment.
As children grow older, they begin to see that
other people have their own goals and
preferences and that often there is room for
Self-Interest negotiation. Decisions are made based on the
Stage 2
Orientation principle of "What's in it for me?" For example,
an older child might reason: "If I do what mom
or dad wants me to do, they will reward me.
Therefore I will do it."
Level II
Conventional Morality
By adolescence, most individuals have
developed to this stage. There is a sense of what
Social
"good boys" and "nice girls" do and the emphasis
Stage 3 Conformity
is on living up to social expectations and norms
Orientation
because of how they impact day-to-day
relationships.
By the time individuals reach adulthood, they
usually consider society as a whole when making
judgments. The focus is on maintaining law and
Law and
order by following the rules, doing one's duty
Stage 4 Order
and respecting authority.
Orientation

Level III
Post-Conventional Morality
Social At this stage, people understand that there are
Stage 5 Contract differing opinions out there on what is right and
Orientation wrong and that laws are really just a social

GECC 104 - ETHICS Module 1

 37

contract based on majority decision and

inevitable compromise. People at this stage
sometimes disobey rules if they find them to be
inconsistent with their personal values and will
also argue for certain laws to be changed if they
are no longer "working". Our modern
democracies are based on the reasoning of Stage
5.
Few people operate at this stage all the time. It
is based on abstract reasoning and the ability to
Universal
put one self in other people's shoes. At this
Stage 6 Ethics
stage, people have a principled conscience and
Orientation
will follow universal ethical principles regardless
of what the official laws and rules are.

However, not all ethicist accept Kohlberg’s Theory on Moral Development.

The issue was that his mentioned dilemma was artificial, or they lack
ecological validity. In the Heinz dilemma, Kohlberg’s subjects were aged
between 10 and 16, never been married, and so, not credible to answer
whether or not Heinz should steal the drug.

 Learning Activity:

1. Make a simple timeline showing the developing moments in your

life and where you are now in moral development.
2. Create a short and simple presentation showcasing stories/cases
featuring moral agents at different stages. Identify the stages of
the agents in each of the cases and justify your answer.

GECC 104 - ETHICS Module 1

 38

Lesson 4

 Feelings, Reason, and Impartiality in

Moral Decision-Making

Learning Outcomes:

1. Recall immediate responses to moral dilemmas.

2. Differentiate responses based on reason and those based on feelings
and compare reasonable and emotional responses.
3. Capture and analyze feelings in your personal moral experiences.
4. Make a moral decision following the 7 Step Moral Reasoning model.

Role of Feelings on Morality

Some ethicists believed that ethics is also a matter of emotions. Moral

judgments should also be emotional. Feelings are seen as necessary in ethical
judgment as they are deemed by some as instinctive and trained response to
moral dilemmas.

Some hold that reason and emotion are not really opposites. They are both
abstract inference and emotional intuitions or instincts seen as having relative
holes in ethical thinking.

Many times, ethical judgments are highly emotional as people emotionally

express their strong approval or disapproval of different acts. Moral
sentiments highlights the need for morality to be based also on sympathy for
other people. Many ethicists conclude that being good involves thinking and
feeling.

 Feelings are instinctive responses to moral dilemmas

Feelings are obstacles to making the right decisions. This happens when
feelings’ role in ethics are misinterpreted or exaggerated. The following are
two feeling-based theories in Ethics:

Ethical Subjectivism. This theory is about the nature of moral

judgments. It holds that the truth or falsity of ethical propositions is
dependent on the feelings, attitudes, or standards of a person or a group of
persons. This theory states that moral judgment simply describe our personal
feelings.

For example, on homosexuality or the issue on abortion, there are

always two opposing views concerning the matter. One side declares and
express its stand that the action is immoral, unethical, defy God’s teaching,
that the doers of the action must be punished by the government. On the
other hand, the other group may claim that the action is normal, accepted by
the society, and that the doer must be tolerated, if not respected. Here

GECC 104 - ETHICS Module 1

 39

enters the third view – another group might say that people in the first two
groups are expressing their respective opinion, but where morality is
concerned, there are no objective facts and no position is objectively right.
This third view represents Ethical Subjectivism. It submits that our moral
opinions are based on our feelings, and nothing more.

It is a fact that some people practice abortion, or that some countries

legalized abortion, and some countries or people do not practice it; but it is
not a fact that one is really good and the other is bad. So if someone say that
abortion is wrong, he/she is, according to the theory, not stating a fact about
abortion but merely expressing his/her feelings toward it. Subjectivists hold
that there is no such thing as objective right or real wrong.

Emotivism. An improved version of Subjectivism considered by its

proponents as more subtle and sophisticated than Subjectivism. It is deemed
invulnerable to many objections.

This theory was developed by the American philosopher Charles L.

Stevenson (1909-1979) which basically states that moral judgments express
positive or negative feelings. “X is right” mean “hooray for X!”, and “X is
immoral” means “Boo on X!” Since ethical judgments are merely commands
and exclamations, they are not true or false; so there cannot be moral truths
and moral knowledge.

Emotivism claims that moral judgments are not statements of fact but
are mere expressions of the emotions of the speaker, especially since they
are feelings-based.

Language plays an important role in conveying moral judgments.

Language is used to state facts or what we believe to be facts. For example,
we may say, “Gasoline costs Php 50 per liter”, and “Jose Rizal is the author
of El Filibusterismo”. In each statement, we are saying something that is true
or false, and the purpose of our utterance is to convey information to the
listener.

Ways by which language are not statement of facts:

a. Command. “Close the door!” this utterance is neither true nor false.
Its purpose is not to convey information but to get to do something. In
giving a command, it does not try to alter a belief but it is trying to
influence a conduct.
b. Expression of speaker’s attitude. “Boo on the price of gasoline!”,
“Hooray for Y!” These are not statement of facts but these are
utterances used to express a speaker’s attitude or feelings toward
something.

There is also a distinction between reporting or conveying an attitude and

expressing same attitude. If I say, “I like X.” I am reporting the fact that I
have a positive attitude towards X. On the other hand, if I say, “Hooray for

GECC 104 - ETHICS Module 1

 40

X!”, I am not stating a fact, not even a fact of my attitude, but expressing an
attitude, but not reporting that I have it.

Thus, in Emotivism, utterances in ethics are not fact-stating sentences

because they are not used to convey information. The theory claims that they
have two different purposes:
a. They are used to influence other’s behavior
b. Moral sentences are used to express (not report) the speaker’s attitude

 Feelings are trained response to moral dilemmas

There are situations in which our feelings and likings are relevant to
the rightness of our decisions and actions. In selecting a course to take, a job
to assume, and a person to marry. Feelings can help in making the right
decision:

a. Ethics-without-feelings appears to go against Christian philosophy on

Love – love is a strong liking, desire or emotion.
b. Without feelings – it will go against the Biblical decree to worship and
serve God with a joyful heart or feeling.
c. Feelings affect our moral responses to forces of disgust, fondness, or
fear.
d. Emotions are crucial part of what gives life meaning, and ought to play
a guiding role in morality.

Reason and Impartiality as Minimum Requirement for Morality

Many believed that Ethical Subjectivism and Emotivism are not viable theories
in Ethics because they failed to make a distinction between moral judgments
and mere expressions of personal preference. Genuine moral or value
judgments ought to be supported by pertinent reasons. They also must possess
the quality of impartiality, that personal feelings or inclinations must be
suppressed if necessary.

Reason

Human beings have not only feelings but also reason, which plays an
important role in Ethics. Moral truths are truths of reason, a moral judgment
is true if it is backed by better reasons than the alternatives. Thus, reason is
a necessary requirement for morality.

Philosophically speaking, 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/changing (if
necessary) practices, institutions, and beliefs based on existing or new
existing information. Reason tells the difference between moral judgments
and expressions of personal taste.
GECC 104 - ETHICS Module 1
 41

Weighing reasons and being guided by them is essential in moral deliberation.

Truth in Ethics entails being justified by good reasons. Thus, the rightful moral
decision involves selecting the option that has the power of reason on its side.

Moral truths are objective in the sense that they are true no matter what we
might think or want if they are defined by good reason. We cannot make an
act moral or immoral by merely wishing it to be so, because we cannot will
that the weight of reason be on its side or against it. And this explains why
morality is not arbitrary or by chance. Reason commends what it commends,
regardless of our feelings, attitudes, opinions, and desires.

Impartiality

Impartiality involves each individual’s interest and point of view, are equally
important. It is also called fair-mindedness or evenhandedness. It is a
principle of justice which holds 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.

In morality, Impartiality requires that we give equal and/or adequate

considerations to the interests of all concerned parties. The principle of
impartiality assumes that every person is equally important, that no one is
seen as more significant than anyone else.

However, some ethicist noted that a clarification is required. To point that

no one is intrinsically seen as more significant than anyone else, is not to say
that there is no reason whatsoever for which an individual might demand
more moral attention or better treatment than others. Many ethicist pointed
out that from the impartial and properly conceived point of view, some
persons count as more significant, at least in certain ways.

The 7 Step Moral Reasoning Model

(The Seven-Step model of Dr. William W. May, School
of Religion, University of Southern California, from his course, "Normative
Analysis of Issues.")

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.

GECC 104 - ETHICS Module 1

 42

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 HIV.

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

GECC 104 - ETHICS Module 1

 43

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.

 Learning Activity:

1. Look for stories from news clips (or news online) that highlight
emotional and rational responses. Make a documentation and discuss
your emotional and rational responses to the news.
2. Look for an article in the newspaper, or in the social media featuring
moral dilemmas on; a) politics, b) medical field, and c) military or the
police force. Create a simple documentation/presentation on the
article and use the 7 Step Moral Reasoning process to solve the moral
issue.

GECC 104 - ETHICS Module 1