MODULE III – THE ACT
INTRODUCTION
Module III presents the second main element of human act. You will learn the role of
feeling in moral decisions. Also, you will acquire knowledge on how to make use of reason and
impartial decisions. Finally, you will analize why reason is not enough in carrying out moral
decisions.
LEARNING OUTCOMES
After reading the module, the student must be able to:
1. Explain the role of feelings in making moral decisions.
2. Discuss how to make reason and impartial decisions.
3. Suggest some ways of making the right decisions.
DIRECTIONS/ MODULE ORGANIZER
Read each lesson very carefully then answer the learning experiences to find out how much
you have benefited from it. Submit your output to your teacher during the face-to-face meeting.
GOOD LUCK! ENJOY LEARNING!
Lesson 1 - FEELING AND MORAL DECISION MAKING
There are at least two theories in ethics that give focus on the role of feelings on morality.
1.) Ethical Subjectivism and Emotivism. Let’s first deal with the view that feelings are
instinctive and trained response to moral dilemmas.
A. Feelings as Instinctive: Response to moral dilemmas
Some Ethicists believe that moral judgements at their best should also be emotional.
Feelings are necessary in ethical judgements according to some because feelings are
instinctive and trained response to moral dilemmas. Feelings are visceral or instinctual by
providing motivation to act morally. Being good involves thinking and feeling. (For
discussion you may read “Appendix G. Herd Instinct, What we actually do, and Beneficial
Behaviours” of this book.)
B. Feelings as Obstacle to Making Right Decisions
There are two famous (but erroneous) feelings based theories in Ethics
1.) Ethical Subjectivism - This theory runs contrary to the principle that there is objectivity
in morality. Basically, a meta-ethical theory, Ethical Subjectivism is not about what things
are good and what things are bad. It is just a theory about the nature of moral judgement. It
does not tell how we should live and what moral norms we should practice.
Although Ethical Subjectivism holds that moral judgements are “truth bearers”, it
believes that the truth is falsity of ethical preposition is dependent on feelings, and attitudes
or standards of a person or group of each person. This theory states that moral judgments
simply describe personal feelings which are contrary to the belief that morality is about
objective facts.
Say homosexuality or abortion, we usually hear two opposing views concerning the
matter. One group declares that the action is immoral may express its stand by saying that
God hates it, it is unethical or doers of the actions must be punished by the government. On
the other hand, the rival group may claim that the action is perfectly normal and practitioners
must be tolerated and respected. But there is the third stance says that the first two groups
are expressing their own opinion but where morality is concerned, there are no objective
facts and no position is objectively right.
Third stance represents Ethical Subjectivism. It holds that our moral opinions are
based on feelings, and nothing more. Subjectivists believe that there is no such thing as
objective right or real wrong.
2.) Analyzing Ethical Subjectivism - Moral principles are identified by simply following
our feelings. However, positively it allows us to think for ourselves because it implies that
we do not need to agree with culture and society.
Ethical Subjectivism creates many problems. Unbelievably, the mere fact that we
like something would make it good. How would the theory assess acts like taking prohibited
drugs, abortion, getting intoxicated and bullying others if some people like them? The
theory provides weak foundation to deal with issues like slavery, racism and discrimination.
Ethical Subjectivity implies what is contrary to what we believe about the nature of
moral judgements. Like it considers it a fact that Jack the Ripper brutally murdered five
women in London. But in telling that his action is evil, is merely saying that we have a
negative feeling towards Jack the Ripper’s murderous deeds. But we believe that moral
judgements are not mere expressions of our personal feeling. Rather in our sincere moral
judgements, we claim the “truth”.
Ethical Subjectivism cannot be correct because we are not infallible. We are
sometimes wrong in our moral evaluation that we want to change it upon realizing we are
wrong.
Subjectivism entails that each should acknowledge the truth of one is saying. If John
believes that hazing is wrong while Peter claims it is good. Certainly, they have
disagreement between them. But both of them are correct provided they are sincere in their
feelings and beliefs. So, John and Peter could not disagree.
Finally, the theory has dangerous implications in moral education because children
simply follow their likes and dislikes. They simply follow their personal feelings and
emotions.
3.) Emotivism - This has been one of the most influential theories in 20th century which was
chiefly developed by the American philosopher Charles L. Stevenson (1909-1979). This
theory basically states that moral judgements express positive or negative feelings. Ethical
judgements are essentially commands and exclamations, they are not true or false so there
cannot be moral truths and moral knowledge. Moral judgements in emotivism are not
statements of facts but mere emotions of the speaker.
In denying moral truths and moral knowledge, some emotivists base their stance on
logical positivism which claims any legitimate truth must be tested by sense experience
otherwise they can only express feelings.
To understand better how emotivism views moral judgements, it would help to note
that language is used in varied ways. The following statements convey informations
“Jose Rizal wrote Noli Me Tangere”, “Marcos was president of the Philippines”.
Another use of language is influence conduct like when we say “close the door” to
get one to do something. Language is also used to express the speaker’s attitudes shown by
the following statements. “Hurrah for Marcos!”,“Alright Pepe”,“Boo on the price of
gasoline”. Utterances in Ethics have two entirely different purposes. First, they are used as
a means to influence other’s behaviour. If someone says, “Stealing is immoral”, Emotivism
interpret it as a command – it is equivalent to saying, “Don’t do that”. Second, Moral
sentences are used to express the speakers attitude. Saying “Fair play is good” is like saying
“Hurrah for fair play!”.
4.) Evaluating Emotivism - It is barely semible to base a moral theory on logical positivism
as this is self- refuting as the view is not itself verifiable by sense experience. Emotivism
denies moral truth and moral knowledge. It seems to dilute morality instead of elucidating it.
In effect, Emotivism suggests that in ethical disputes, we cannot appeal to reason but only to
emotion.
Emotivism fails to distinguish moral judgements from mere expressions of personal
preference. A genuine moral or value judgement must be supported by pertinent reasons.
Having a logical positivist background, Emotivists discards moral truth.
Maintaining that moral truths are not testable by empirical observation and experimentation
the theory reduces morality to mere matters of feelings. Emotivism fails to notice that
humans do not have only feelings but also reason which plays a vital role in Ethics. In f act,
moral truths are truths of reason.
C. Feeling Can Help in Making the Right Decisions -+ Ethical Subjectivism and
Emotivism cannot be disregarded completely in the sphere of morality. There are
situations in which our feelings and likings are relevant to make right decisions. In
selecting a course, to assume a job, especially a person to marry considers our
feelings taste and preference.
Christian philosophy emphasizes love for love is basically a strong desire,
liking or emotion. To worship and serve God with joyful heart or feeling is a biblical
desire.
Emotions, like our love for our friends and family, are a crucial part of what
gives life meaning, and ought to play a guiding role in morality. Cold impartial,
rational thinking is not the only proper way to make an ethical decision.
Nonetheless, feelings or emotions involved in moral thinking should be based on
careful consideration of a full range of right goals, including altruistic ones. In
denying moral truth and moral knowledge, some emotivists base their stance on
logical positivism which claims that any legitimate truth must be tested by some
experiences.
LEARNING EXPERIENCES
I. True or False: Write T if the statement is true and F if false.
1. Feelings and emotions can become obstacles to become ethical.
2. Ethical Subjectivism suggests that we are to identify our moral principles by simply
following our feelings.
3. Ethics without feeling also appears to go against Christian Philosophy.
4. Cold, impartial rational thinking is the only way to make ethical decision.
5. Emotions like our love for our family and friends give meaning and ought to play a role
in morality.
6. Feelings are also instinctual by providing motivations to act morally.
7. In emotivism, in ethical disputes we cannot appeal to reason but only to emotion.
8. Emotivism basically states that moral judgements express positive or negative feelings.
9. Feelings can help in making right moral decisions.
10. Moral Judgements at their best should never be emotional.
II. Essay:
1. Discuss the strength and weaknesses of ethical subjectivism
2. Is reason important in Ethical Judgement? Why?
3. How can feelings help make right decisions?
Lesson II - Reason and Impartiality as Minimum Requirement for Morality A. Reason and
Impartiality Defined
Reason plays a virtual role in Ethics. In fact, moral truths are truths of reason that
is a moral judgement is true if it is sponsored by better reasons what the alternatives. In
Philosophy, reason is the basis or motive for an action, decision or conviction. As a quality,
if refers to the capacity for logical, rational and analytic thought, for consciously making
sense of things, establishing and verifying facts, applying common sence and logic, and
justifying if necessary changing practices, institution and beliefs based on existing
information.
Moral deliberation is a matter of weighing reasons and being guided by them.
Reason is indispensable in understanding the nature of morality truth is justified by good
reasons. Moral truths are objective no matter what we might want or think. Reason
commends what it commends regardless of our feelings, attitudes, opinion and desires.
Impartiality involves the idea that each individual’s interests and point of view are
equally important. Impartiality requires that equal consideration is given to concerned
parties. It assumes that no one is seen more significant than anyone.
Other Ethicists however suggest that some clarifications are required. Properly
conceived from the impartial point of view, some person count as more significant at least
in certain ways. A virtuous and religious leads may be more significant that a mere maid.
So, in an emergency the decent religious leader ought to be rescued first. It is not that
religious leader is intrinsically more significant rather he makes greater contribution to
society.
B. The 7-Steps Moral Reasoning Model
Contemporary author Scott B. Rae, Ph.D. proposes a model for making ethical
decisions. This is a 7-step model which uses reason and impartiality in deciding on moral
matters.
Rae starts presenting his model by telling the case of a twenty-year old Hispanic male who
was brought to a hospital emergency room, having suffered abdominal gunshot wounds
obtained in gang violence.
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.
When he was discharged from the hospital the patient’s twenty-two year old sister
took care of him until he was fully recovered. Though he had always a good relationship
with his sister, she didn’t know that he was an active homosexual. His greatest fear was his
father would know his case. Homosexuality is generally looked upon with extreme
disfavour among Hispanics.
Now here lies the moral dilemma. The patient’s doctor is bound by his code of
ethics that puts a very high priority on keeping confidentiality. This code mandates that
information about one’s medical condition that he does not want known cannot be revealed
by the physician. Some even argue that the obligation of confidentiality s even greater with
HIV/AIDS since revelation of somebody’s homosexual orientation usually carries
devastating personal costs for the person who is forced “out of the closet”. On the other
hand, the patient’s sister is putting herself at risk by nursing him. Some believe that the
sister has the right to know the risks to which she is subjecting herself, especially so that
she willingly volunteers to take care of her brother.
So, if you were the physician, what would you do in this case? Would you breach
the rule of confidentiality to safeguard the patient’s sister, or would you keep
confidentiality to protect the patient from harm from his family members especially the
father?
To sufficiently address the ethical dilemmas that people encounter, Rae offers a
model to insure that all the needed bases are covered. The model serves as a guideline in
ascertaining that all the right questions are being asked in the process of ethical deliberation.
The following are the steps of a model for making moral decisions:
1. Gather the facts. In examining a case we want to know the available facts at hand
as well as any facts that need to be determined. We need to ask what we know and also
what do we need to know to generate intelligent ethical decision.
2. Determine the ethical issues. In the above mention are the interests of the patient
in having his physician keep confidentially conflict with the interest of his sister to be
protected from the risk of contracting the HIV virus.
3. Identity the Principles that Have a Bearing on the Case. For Rae, biblical
principles are weighted most heavily. But there may be other principles essentially
relevant from other sources like constitutional principles; principles drown from natural
law that supplements the biblical principles.
4. List the Alternatives. In general, the more alternatives that are listed, the better the
chance that you list will include some high quality ones. Or you may sum up with some
creative alternatives that not considered before.
5. Compare the Alternatives with the principles. This step involves eliminating
alternatives according to the moral principles that have a bearing on the case. The
purpose of this comparison is to determine whether there is a clear decision that can be
made without further deliberation. In many cases, the case is resolved at this point. If a
clear decision is not made, then the next step is to be considered.
6. Weigh the Consequences. If the principles do not give a clear decision, consider
the consequences of the remaining alternatives. Some positive consequences are more
beneficial than others and some negative consequences are more detrimental than
others.
7. Make a Decision. Deliberation ought not to go forever; a decision must be made at
some point.
It must be realized that one common element to moral dilemmas is that there are no
easy and painless solution to them. Normally the decision that is made is one that gives the
least number of problems or negative consequences, not one that is devoid of them.
Employing the Rae’s model, let us return to the aforementioned specific case to
illustrate how the model is used and clarify exactly what is meant by each of the elements
in the model:
a. Gather the facts. For Rae, the relevant facts in the case are:
• The patient is a young man infected with HIV and an active homosexual.
• He suffered fairly severe abdominal wounds but 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 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’s HIV positive.
• He is uninsured and cannot afford home nursing care by a professional.
• Medical 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 to 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 wounds dressings for her
brother and the changes 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.
b. Determine the Ethical Issue(s). In the case, the competing interests are those of the
sister who will provide the care and the patient who will receive it. Both of them 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. In effect, 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 risk of
contracting the HIV virus from contact with her brother’s blood.
The case 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. By way of summary, the conflict is the need for patient confidentiality
vs. duty to warn the sister of risk of harm.
c. Identify the Principles that have a Bearing on the Case. So what principles have
a bearing on the case? Two ethical principles that speak to the case come out of the
way in which the moral issue is stated. The case is about a conflict of rights, a
conflict of duties that a physician has toward his patient and toward the sister. He is
morally obligated to exercise compassion toward both, but what compassion (or the
duty to “do no harm”) requires depends on which individual in the case is in view.
Two principles are thus dominant. First is the widely acknowledged principle that
patients have a right to have their medical information kept confidential, especially the
information that could be used to harm them if it were revealed. But a second principle
relevant to the case is the duty of the physician to warn interested parties other than the
patient if they are at risk of looming and considerable harm.
A difficult aspect of any ethical decision is deciding what weight to give the
principles relevant to the case. No doubt, the principle for confidentiality is deemed
virtually sacred in the medical profession and most physicians will argue that is necessary
to keep confidentiality is often measured as subordinate to the duty to warn someone who
will likely be harmed if that information is not revealed “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” (Rae,n.d.)
In the case, the crucial question in weighing the two conflicting principles is the
degree of risk that the patient’s sister is taking by providing nursing care for her brother. If
the risk is considerable, then that weighs confidentiality a bit more heavily, But if the risk
is substantial, then the duty to warn is the more heavily weighted principle.
Considering that the sister has volunteered to perform a very self-sacrificing service
for her brother, it can be argued that her self-sacrifice is an additional factor that weighs the
duty to warn principle more heavily. Some would even claim that the patient’s HIV is an
example of “reaping what one sows” and that all the more minimizes consideration of the
patient’s desire for confidentiality.
Another element that should be considered in 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. 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” (Rae, n.d)
d. List the Alternatives. One option is to tell the sister that her brother is HIV positive.
This alternative comes out of considering the duty to warn principle as higher
priority. A second option is to refuse to tell her that information, considering the
confidentiality principle as carrying the most weight, thereby upholding the patient’s
request for confidentiality.
However, there are other alternatives that do not involve compromise and they each
reflect a weighing of the two principles. One alternative is for the physician to warn the
patient’s sister in general terms about taking suitable precautions for caring for these types
of wounds. At all times, she is to wear gloves and a mask when handling the bandages. If
she gets any blood on her clothes or body, she is to wash instantly with a disinfectant soap.
Meaning, she is to take universal precautions that any medical professionals normally takes
in caring for patients.
Another alternative is to request that the patient inform his sister of his condition.
The patient could then request that she does not tell any other family member or any of his
friends. If the patient declined, then the next step might be to say to him in effect, “If you
don’t tell her, I will.”
e. Compare Alternative with Principles. Rae suggests that 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 pertinent principles. Surely though , there are
questions about the adequacy of those precautions. Will she follow them, or treat
them casually? Assume for the moment, however, that appeal to principles does not
resolve the dilemma.
f. Assess the Consequences. The undertaking here is to take the viable alternatives
that attempt to predict what the likely consequences (both positive and negative) of
each would be. Furthermore, it should be tried to estimate approximately how
beneficial are the positive consequences and how severe the negative ones are, since
some consequences are evidently more substantial than others.
Usually, when two opposing alternatives are offered, the consequences of one are
the mirror image of the other. This is exemplified by our case’s alternatives of telling the
sister or refusing to tell her of her brother’s HIV status.
The option of telling the sister (or insisting that the patient tells his sister) has the
following likely consequences (Rae, n.d):
The sister would be properly warned about the risks of taking care of her brother,
minimizing the risk 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 psycho-social 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.
In the alternative of the physician refusing to disclose the information, the
following may be estimated as the likely consequences (Rae, n.d):
• 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 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.
Now, if the alternative of telling the sister to take general precautions is adopted,
the following are likely the consequences (Rae,n.d):
• 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 ensure
her compliance with them, that may start her asking questions about why the
doctors was so insistent in 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 s 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 include that the physician has prompted his sister to
ask these questions, leaving him feeling betrayed.
g. Make a Decision. Rae offers no definite decision under this final step but instead
leaves us the following further guiding questions: “What would you decide in this case?
Which principles are the most weighty? Are there others that you would include?
Which alternatives are the viable? Are there others that you would suggest?
Which consequences seem to you the most severe? Are there that you’ll think will
occur?” (Rae, n.d.). Indeed, it is significant to understand at some point, we must stop
deliberating and make a decision, as uncomfortable that may be.
For one thing, Rae’s model is good in the sense that it has room in it to
accommodate a whole host of different moral and ethical perspectives, considering
the ethnic and religious diversity of our society. The model is not necessarily tied
to any one specific perspective, but can be employed comfortably with a variety of
ethnic, cultural, and religious background. Finally, it promotes the primal
consideration of reason and impartiality in ethics without necessarily eradicating
the role of feelings in ethical deliberation.
LEARNING EXPERIENCES:
A. True or False: Write T if the statement is true and F if its false.
1. Humans have not only feelings but also reason, and reason plays a vital role in Ethics.
2. Morality commends what it commends, regardless of our feelings, attitudes, opinions,
and desires.
3. The principle of impartiality assumes that every person generally speaking, is equally
important; that is, no one is seen as intrinsically more significant than anyone else.
4. When two opposing alternatives are offed, the consequences of one are the mirror
image of the other.
5. It must be realized that one common element to moral impartiality is that there are no
easy and painless solutions to them.
6. A moral judgement is true if it is espoused by better reasons than the alternatives.
7. At least in Philosophy, reason is the basis or motive for an action, decision, or
conviction.
8. The rightful moral decision involves selecting the option that has the power of reason
on its side.
9. Reason is a principle of justice holding that decision 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.
10. Reason spells the difference of moral judgements from mere expressions of personal
preference.
B. Matching Type: Match column A with column B.
1. Identify the principles that A. The indispensable first step
have a bearing in the case prior to any ethical analysis
and reflection on the case.
2. Determine the ethical issues B. The step where both
positive and negative
3. Gather these facts consequences are to be
considered.
4. List the alternatives C. The step when one decides
whether some principles are
5. Make a decision to be weighed more heavily
than others
6. Assess/ Weigh the Consequences D. This involves eliminating
alternatives according to the
7. Compare Alternatives with moral principles that have a
Principles bearing on the case
E. Moral issues should be
correctly stated in terms of
competing interests
F. This part of the model is
done after deliberation
G. This involves coming up
with various alternative
courses of action as part of
the creative thinking
C. Essay
Use the 7-step moral reasoning model to solve a case (moral dilemma)
LESSON III - MORAL COURAGE
In realizing moral dilemma, we are advised to guide our emotions with reason. But reason
to many ethicists is not enough. Moral courage is also important.
A. The Importance of Will and Moral Courage.
Oftentimes when we make good moral decision moral courage is lacking which
necessarily involves the will. In morality therefore, will is essential just as reason is
significant. Moral Courage means doing the right thing even at the risk of inconvenience,
redicule, punishment, loss of job or security or moral statues, etc. Moral courage requires
us to rise above the apathy, complacency, hatred, cynicism, and fear-mongering in our
political system, socioeconomic decisions, and cultural/ religious differences.
The concept “will” refers to that faculty of the mind which chooses at the movement
of making decisions, the strongest desire among the various desires present. It refers to the
capacity to act decisively on one’s desires. It is considered important in Ethics because of
its central role in enabling a person to act deliberately. Commonly we think of will in the
active sense, of self-control of working toward and attaining goals.
The German Philosopher Arthur Shopenhaver explained that when we become
conscious of ourselves we recognize that our essential qualities are endless! urging,
craving, striving, wanting and desiring. Those are features of our will. According to
Shopenhaver will is the innermost essence, the kernel of every particular thing and also of
the whole. He believed that the will is primary and uses knowledge in order to find an object
that will satisfy its craving.
An important concept is “will power”. It refers to the inner strength to make a
decision, take action and handle and execute any aim or task until it is accomplished,
regardless of inner and outer resistance, discomforts or difficulties. It is the ability to
overcome laziness, temptations and negative habits and carry out actions, even if they
require effort, are unpleasant and tedious or are contrary to one’s habits.
Having moral courage and will means doing the right thing which may include
listening to our conscience, that quiet voice within. For parents using will power usually
demands putting aside compelling but momentary pleasures or comforts in order to set a
good example for their children and be the good parents they wish to be.
Moral courage demands us to make judgements about what behaviors or acts are
supportive. Moral courage and will require us to recognize our responsibilities and be
accountable to the consequences of our own action.
Moral Courage sounds like (“Moral Courage,” n.d)
“I believe strongly in ________/”
“Let’s volunteer”
“Dad I’m in trouble”
“I broke this, Mom, I’m sorry”
“You shouldn’t talk behind his back”
“You can depend on me”
“I’ll march with you”
“It’s not fair that ----”
On the other hand, lack of moral courage sounds like (“Moral Courage” n.d.).
“It’s none of my business”
“She got what she deserved”
“How could you do this to me?”
“I only did it once”
“This is all your fault”
“I might get into trouble”
“That’s got nothing to do with me”
“There’s no use trying to change the system, it’s just so strong”
B. Developing Will and Moral Courage
1. Develop and practice self-discipline – It is giving up on instant pleasure and
satisfaction for a higher and better goal such as executing a good rational moral
decision. Developing will and moral courage involves developing self- control. It is
endorsing the inner strength to focus all the energy on a moral goal and persevere until
it is accomplished.
2. Do mental strength training - One of the most simple and an effective method
under this mental strength training involves declining to satisfy unimportant and
unnecessary desires.
Saying no to useless, harmful or unnecessary desires and deeds fortify and refine a
person’s mind-set.
The following are some examples. Some are not ethically related:
• Don’t open the internet for a day or two.
• Drink water or juice, instead of beer or liquor.
• Avoid chatting with your gossipy friend.
• Resist the desire to gamble.
Training like these adds to the storehouse of one’s inner strength. By following a
methodical method of training a person can reach far, have more control over himself
and his life. Realizes ethical goals, improves his life and achieve satisfaction and peace
of mind.
3. Draw inspiration from people of great courage - There are people in all walks of
life, who with sheer with power and moral courage, overcame difficulties and
hardships, have improved their moral life, advanced on the spiritual or moral path, and
became worthy of imitation. Some people with outstanding moral courage whom we
celebrate are Mahatma Gandhi, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and most especially Jesus
Christ and his Apostles. When we see people put their comfort, safety, reputation, or
even life for a good cause they believe in, or for an ideal that matters more than personal
well being, we witness moral courage and will in action.
4. Repeatedly do acts that exhibit moral courage and will - Practice makes perfect.
If one wishes to nurture the moral courage and will in him, he must strive doing the
acts that manifest them whenever opportunity allows. The following are examples:
(“Moral Courage,”n.d.).
a. Standing up to a bully on the playground
b. Picking up litter
c. Doing chores without being reminded
d. Refusing to listen to gossips
e. Returning lost objects to Lost and Found
f. Reporting a crime
5. Avoid deeds that show lack of moral courage and will - This refers to evading
facts that shows irresponsibility, cowardice, apathy, imprudence, ill will, and
wickedness. Here are some examples (“Moral Courage,”n.d.):
a. Walking away from someone in need
b. Taking more than your fair share
c. Laughing at someone misfortune
d. Grabbing credits from someone who earned it
e. Breaking a promise
f. Lying or cheating
LEARNING EXPERIENCES
I. Identification: Identify the terms being referred to
1. It means doing the right thing even at the risk of security or social status.
2. The capacity to act decisively on one’s desires.
3. According to him, will is the innermost essence.
4. It refers to the inner strength to make a decision and take action
5. Declining to satisfy unimportant and unnecessary desires is one of the example of this
method in developing will and moral courage.
6. The quiet voice within us which when disregarded may lead feelings of quiet and
inadequacy and diminish personal integrity.
II. Enumeration
A. Individuals who are outstanding examples of moral courage (1-5)
B. The 5 essential qualities of will (6-10)
III. Essay
Differentiate knowing and actually executing a good moral decision.
