Ethics and Morality

 Ethos (Greek) and Mores (Latin) are terms having to do with custom, habit, and behavior.
 Ethics is the study of morality

What is Morality?

 morality can be defined as a system of rules for guiding human conduct, and
principles for evaluating those rules.
  Two points are worth noting in this definition (i) morality is a system and (ii) it is a system
comprised of moral rules and principles. Moral rules can be understood as "rules of conduct,"
which are very similar to "policies."

The Nature of Morality

“We are discussing no small matter, but how we ought to live” (Plato in the Republic ca. 390B.C.)

Moral standards are norms that individuals or groups have about the kinds of actions believed to be
morally right or wrong, as well as the values placed on what we believed to be morally good or morally bad.
Moral standards normally promote “the good”, that is, the welfare and well-being of humans as well as
animals and the environment. Moral standards, therefore, prescribe what humans ought to do in terms of
rights and obligations.

Non-moral standards refer to standards by which we judge what is good or bad and right or wrong in a
non-moral way. Examples of non-moral standards are standards of etiquette by which we judge manners
as good or bad, standards we call the law by which we judge something as legal or illegal, and standards of
aesthetics by which we judge art as good or rubbish. Hence, we should not confuse morality with etiquette,
law, aesthetics or even with religion.

19
Should I be moral?

 People who study ethics assume that, in the end, we desire informing ourselves about ways of
acting that are preferred or distinguished according to moral principles and learning how to live with
moral complexity.
 The context of Should I be moral? is that we make judgments that hold for all persons in the same
situation (IMPARTIALITY). As children we are told or shown what is right and wrong in a given
situation and encouraged to generalize. The notion that following a principle for its own sake, not for
gain or self-interest, is to be moral is presented. In other words, adopting a moral point of view.

Reason Impartiality

 Moral judgments must be backed by good reasons feelings can overwhelm reason. Assess
arguments, consider facts and principles, avoid prejudices. Recognize that arguments can go wrong
in many ways. Do not let reason be overwhelmed by feeling.
 Morality requires the impartial consideration of each individuals interests. Each individuals interests
are of equal importance and the welfare of others is as important as our own. This is a proscription
against arbitrariness.

Minimum Conception

 Morality is, at the very least, the effort to guide ones conduct by reason that is, to do what are the
best reasons for doing while giving equal weight to the interests of each individual affected by what
ones decision. p. 13.
  A conscientious moral agent is concerned with the affect of his/her actions, scrutinizes accepted
principles, listens to what reason demands, and acts on the outcome of careful deliberations about
what to do.

Supporting Moral Reasoning Minimum Standards

 Moral reasoning must be Logical; Based on the relevant facts; Based on sound or defensible
moral principles.

MORAL DILEMMA/ TYPES OF INQUIRIES

 The three types of inquiries, in solving ethical problems are normative inquiry, conceptual inquiry,
and factual or descriptive inquiry.

Normative Inquiry

 It seeks to identify and justify the morally-desirable norms or standards that should guide individuals
and groups. It also has the theoretical goal of justifying particular moral judgments. Normative
questions are about what ought to be and what is good, based on moral values.

Conceptual Inquiry

 It is directed to clarify the meaning of concepts or ideas or principles that are expressed by words or
by questions and statements. For example “what s risk”

Factual or Descriptive Inquiry

 It is aimed to obtain facts needed for understanding and resolving value issues. Researchers
conduct factual inquiries using mathematical or statistical techniques. The facts provide not only the
reasons for moral problems but also enable us to develop alterative ways of resolving moral
problems.
 For example,
 How were the benefits assessed?
 What are procedures followed in risk assessment?

MORAL DILEMMA

 Dilemmas are situations in which moral reasons come into conflict, or in which the application of
moral values are unclear, and one is not clear of the immediate choice or solution of the problems.
 Moral reasons could be rights, duties, goods or obligations. These situations do not mean that
things had gone wrong, but they only indicate the presence of moral complexity. This makes the
decision making complex.

 There are some difficulties in arriving at the solution to the problems, in dilemma. The three complex
situations leading to moral dilemmas are
 The problem of vagueness One is unable to distinguish between good and bad (right or wrong)
principle. Good means an action that is obligatory. For example, code of ethics specifies that one
should obey the laws and follow standards. Refuse bribe or accept the gift, and maintain
confidentiality
 The problem of conflicting reasons One is unable to choose between two good moral solutions.
One has to fix priority, through knowledge or value system.
 The problem of disagreement There may be two or more solutions and none of them mandatory.
These solutions may be better or worse in some respects but not in all aspects.

Steps to Solve Dilemma

 The logical steps in confronting moral dilemma are

2. Collection of all information, data, and facts (factual inquiry) relevant to the situation.

3. Rank the moral options i.e., priority in application through value system, and also as obligatory, all right,
acceptable, not
acceptable, damaging, and most damaging etc. For example, in fulfilling responsibility, the codes give
prime importance to public safety and protection of the environment, as compared to the individuals or the
employers (conceptual inquiry).

4. Generate alternate courses of action to resolve the dilemma. Write down the main options and sub-
options as a matrix or decision tree to ensure that all options are included.

5. Discuss with colleagues and obtain their perspectives, priorities, and suggestions on various alternatives.

6. Decide upon a final course of action, based on priority fixed or assumed. If there is no ideal solution, we
arrive at a partially satisfactory or satisficing solution.

THREE LEVELS. Tsetsura and Valentini produced a model which incorporated the significance of
personal, professional and environmental values in affecting ethical judgements. They proposed a similar
model of ethical judgement based on three levels:

 Micro-level: At the personal level, human values, including their preferable modes of
behaviors and outcomes, would affect their views on how and what should be achieved
through his or her behaviors.
 Meso-level: At the professional level, judgements could be affected by what guides their
values in terms of what is seen as being accepted by the organizations and the professions
they are in.
 Macro-level: At the societal/environmental level, one’s personal networks, including family,
friends and community would affect the extent to which practices are considered ethical or
unethical. And such predispositions could be reinforced over time. In particular, country-
specific factors, including changing political, economic and socio-cultural conditions, could
influence the way public relations is practiced.

Based on these assumptions, a model is proposed to show that an individual’s value system
is made up of personal values, professional values and environmental values. At the same
time, personal factors, including education, experiences, gender and background, and
country-specific factors, including political system, economic system, and social-cultural
system, are the external factors which could affect the values. There could be variations
from one individual to another as individuals emphasize values from one level more than
another.