Ethics

Module 2: The Moral Agent

Introduction

This module covers five lessons to be studied independently during the midterm period (Weeks 3 and 4).
These lessons revolve around the concept of the moral agent. A moral agent is a person who can discern
right from wrong and be held accountable for his or her actions. We will look at how culture may influence
the agent’s conception of morality. We will also look at the particularly Filipino understanding of moral
behavior. How moral character traits are formed through habituation and role modeling will also be
examined. You will also study the stages of moral development from a psychological point of view. The last
lesson focuses on the process of making ethical decisions. At the end of each lesson, you answer an
assessment task.

Learning Objectives

At the end of the module, the students will be able to:

1. explain the meaning of cultural relativism

2. evaluate the argument of ethical relativism
3. discuss the relationship between virtues and moral character
4. give reasons why moral cultivation is important
5. discuss the relationship between the concept of loob and the concept of kapwa
6. give examples of kagandahang loob and hiya as a virtue
7. evaluate one’s stage of moral reasoning using Kohlberg’s theory
8. Apply the 7-step moral reasoning model to solve the Trolley Problem

Topic Outline

1. Cultural Relativism
2. Filipino Understanding of Moral Behavior
3. Developing virtue as a habit
4. Stages Moral Development
5. Scott Rae’s 7-Step Moral Reasoning Model

Instructional Materials

Carneades.org (Jan 8, 2018). What is virtue ethics? [Video]. YouTube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPV2KsWMRfc

Got Questions Ministries (May 21, 2020). What is cultural relativism? [Video]. YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzT-RDrWbZo&ab_channel=GotQuestionsMinistries
McCombs School of Business (December 18, 2018). Moral relativism| Ethics defined. [Video]. YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RU7M6JSVtk&ab_channel=McCombsSchoolofBusiness

Sprouts (November 29, 2019). Kohlberg’s six stages of moral development. [Video]. YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bounwXLkme4&ab_channel=Sprouts

The Audiopedia (January 4, 2018). What is moral character? What does moral character mean? [Video].
YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJbTkXp8PKw&ab_channel=TheAudiopedia

Lesson 1: Cultural Relativism

Different cultures have different moral codes

Darius, a king of ancient Persia, was intrigued by the variety of cultures he met in his
travels. He had found, for example, that the Callatians, who lived in India, ate the bodies
of their dead fathers. Of course, the Greeks did not do that—the Greeks practiced cremation
and regarded the funeral pyre as the fitting way to dispose of the dead. Darius thought that
a sophisticated outlook should appreciate the differences between cultures. One day, to
teach this lesson, he summoned some Greeks at his court and asked what it would take for
them to eat their dead fathers’ bodies. They were shocked, as Darius knew they would be.
They replied that no amount of money could persuade them to do such a thing. Then Darius
called in some Callatians and, while the Greeks listened, asked them what it would take for
them to burn their dead fathers’ bodies. The Callatians were horrified and told Darius not
to speak of such things

The Eskimos lived in small settlements, separated by great distances, and their customs
turned out to be very different from ours. The men often had more than one wife, and they
would share their wives with guests, lending them out for the night as a sign of hospitality.
A dominant male might demand—and get—regular sexual access to other men’s wives
within a community. However, the women were free to break these arrangements by
merely leaving their husbands and taking up with new partners—free, that is, so long as
their former husbands chose not to make too much trouble. All in all, the Eskimo custom
of marriage was a volatile practice very unlike our custom.

What is cultural relativism?

Relativism means that our judgments about ethics are relative to (or dependent upon) something else.
Cultural relativism holds that ethical judgments are relative to cultural contexts. It holds that ethical values
vary from society to society and that the basis for moral judgments lies in these social or cultural views. For
an individual to decide and do what is right, they must look to the norms of the society. A cultural relativist
holds that no society’s views are better than any other society.

Cultural relativist holds that there are no universal moral truths. The customs of different societies are all
that exist. To call a custom “correct” or “incorrect” would imply that we can judge it by some independent
standard of right and wrong. But we would merely be judging it by the standards of our own culture. No
independent standard exists; every standard is culture-bound. Cultural Relativism holds that the norms of
a culture reign supreme within the bounds of the culture itself.

These are the claims of cultural relativists:

1. Different societies have different moral codes.

2. The moral code of a society determines what is right within that society; if the moral code says that a
particular action is right, then that action is right, at least within that society.
3. There is no objective standard used to judge one society’s code as better than another’s. There are no
moral truths that hold for all people at all times.
4. Our society’s moral code has no special status; it is but one among many.
5. It is arrogant for us to judge other cultures. We should always be tolerant of them.

The cultural differences argument

Cultural Relativists often employ a certain argumentative strategy. They begin with facts about cultures and
wind up concluding morality. For example,
Premise: The Greeks believed it was wrong to eat the dead, whereas the Callatians believed it was right to
eat the dead. (Facts)
Conclusion: Therefore, eating the dead is neither objectively right nor objectively wrong. It is merely a
matter of opinion, which varies from culture to culture. (Moral principle)

The fundamental form of the argument above is

Premise: Different cultures have different moral codes.

Conclusion: Therefore, there is no objective truth in morality. Right and wrong are only matters of opinion,
and opinions vary from culture to culture.

Reasons supporting cultural relativism

1. Moral diversity exists among people and culture.

2. Relativism promotes tolerance and open-mindedness among people and cultures.
3. There is great difficulty in knowing what is the morally right thing to believe or do.
4. The situations and living worlds of different people vary so much that it is difficult to believe the same
things that would be right for one would be right for another.

Objections to cultural relativism

1. It does not give a good argument as to why cannibalism, sexism, racism, genital mutilation, having no
human rights, etc., are moral.
2. Relativism ignores diversity within a culture.
3. Relativism implies that obvious moral wrongs are acceptable.
4. Relativism undermines the possibility of society being self-critical.

References

MacKinnon, B. & Fiala, A. (2018). Ethics: theory and contemporary issues (9th Ed.). Cengage Learning.
Rachels, S. (2015). The elements of moral philosophy (8th Ed.). McGraw Hill Education.
Shafer-Landau, R. (2012). The fundamentals of ethics (2nd Ed.). Oxford University Press.

Lesson 2: Developing Virtue as Habit

Ethics is fundamentally related to what kind of persons we are. What kind of persons we ought to be? What
kind of person one’s character constitutes one. There’s a clear link between moral character and virtue. A
person’s moral character is primarily a function of whether she has or lacks various moral virtues and vices.
The virtues and vices that comprise one’s moral character are dispositions to behave in certain ways in
certain sorts of circumstances. For example, an honest person is disposed to telling the truth when asked.
These dispositions are stable and long-term, and robust (consistent across wide-spectrum conditions).

What are virtues?

Virtues are qualities that make a person excellent. Which qualities make a person excellent? (1) Virtues are
qualities that attain good ends. They are qualities that enable a thing to attain good ends or perform its
function well. To be virtuous, one must be effective at attaining the good. (2) Virtue is qualities that involve
good motives. Virtues are acquired traits of character that involve appropriate motivation, action, emotion,
and perception. Attaining good ends is not enough (or not even required) for virtue since one can attain
good ends and even perform appropriate actions but have vicious motives.

What is a moral character?

Character refers to a set of qualities or characteristics that can be used to differentiate between persons. In
ethics, a character refers to the particularly moral dimension of a person. Virtue, for Aristotle, means
goodness or excellence. Excellence is a quality that makes an individual a good member of its kind.
Excellence is a property whereby its possessor operates well or fulfills its function.

Moral character traits have an irreducibly evaluative dimension; they involve a normative judgment. The
evaluative dimension is directly related to the idea that the agent is morally responsible for having the trait
itself or the outcome of that trait.

The moral character trait is a character trait or which the agent is morally responsible. To be morally
responsible is to deserve the reactive attitudes (positive: moral praise, gratitude, respect, love vs. negative:
moral blame, resentment, indignation). Moral character traits are those for which the possessor is the
proper recipient of the reactive attitudes.

What are the characteristics of moral character?

1. A moral character is a kind of disposition. Dispositions are particular kinds of properties or characteristics
that objects can possess. For example, a generous person is disposed to share her blessings with other
people. Moral character traits are those dispositions of character for which it is appropriate to hold agents
morally responsible.

2. Moral character traits are relatively stable, fixed, and reliable dispositions and reasonably good predictors
overtime of an agent’s behavior if that agent is in a trait-relevant situation. For example, a generous person
will likely exhibit generosity whenever circumstances require it. However, traits are not exceptionless. A
single case of dishonesty does not mean that an individual lacks a generally honest character.

3. Moral character traits are not just dispositions to engage in certain outward behaviors; they can also be
dispositions to have certain emotions or affections.

Justice is the disposition to treat others as they deserve to be treated.

Courage is the disposition to feel the appropriate amount of fear called for by a situation.

4. Moral character traits as dispositions must also be informed by proper reasoning about the matter at
hand. Virtues as excellences of character are the best exercise of reason (practical wisdom), a disposition to
make morally discerning choices in practical matters.

5. An individual with a particular moral character trait will exhibit trait-relevant behavior across a broad
spectrum of trait-relevant situations. An honest person will tend to tell the truth in a wide range of honesty-
related situations: honesty toward friends, family members, co-workers, students, etc.

How do habits make us virtuous?

1. Folk approach. Virtues can be acquired outside of conscious awareness through habits aimed at attaining
virtue-relevant goals, imitating virtuous role models, or following practical advice. Some people choose
vocations that require discipline in virtue, and they receive that training as part of their vocational choice.
Members of religious orders, for example, live by rules that guide their lives and purport to help them
become patient, humble, chaste, loving, etc. Soldiers and police officers undergo training meant to
overcome fear and inculcate courage. These people deliberately cultivate virtues to become good or better
monks, soldiers, and police officers.

Often, people aspire to virtue-relevant goals. Virtue-relevant goals are goals associated with roles or
activities the successful performance of which requires virtue. Someone might aspire to be a good doctor,
nurse, teacher, or parent or promote peace. Successful performance in these roles or attainment of these
goals requires virtues. For example, compassion for patients balanced by professional concern and
effectiveness is one hallmark of a good healthcare provider, and good parents display generosity and
kindness, sprinkled with doses of loving firmness, in interacting with their children. Good teachers are
conscientious about class preparation, care about their students, fair and even-handed in grading, calling
on students in a class, and so on.

In this approach, people are not directly motivated to become virtuous. Instead, they are directly motivated
to become something, such as a good parent or a good teacher, for which virtue is required. They develop
virtue indirectly by pursuing other goals, the emulation of role models, or the enactment of practical advice.

2. Intelligent virtue approach. In this approach, virtue is explicitly taught by those who want to be virtuous
and by their mentors. Virtues should be deliberately cultivated. The deliberate cultivation of virtues requires
motivation and cognition.

Motivational aspect. A person has the need to learn and the drive to aspire for virtue cultivation.
Learners of virtue need both to learn how to be virtuous for themselves, that is, in their way and
not as a clone-like copy of another, and should have the drive to aspire to deeper, richer, more
extensive practical understandings of how to be virtuous.

Cognitive aspect. One cannot develop one’s virtues without thinking about how and why one
should do it. A person should think about how she can be genuinely compassionate to others and
why she should do it. She reflects on what being compassionate would mean for her, given her
personality and circumstances, and what it would mean for the recipients of her intended kindness
and compassion. Virtuous dispositions are acquired and cultivated through habituation that is
intelligent and flexible, not mindless routine.

References

Annas, J., Narvaez, D., & Snow, N. E. (Eds.). (2016). Developing the virtues: integrating perspectives.
Oxford University Press.
Battaly, H. (Ed.). (2011). Virtue and vice, moral and epistemic. John Wiley & Sons.
Timpe, K. (N.d.). Moral character. Retrieved from https://iep.utm.edu/moral-ch/

Lesson 3: Filipino Understanding of Moral Behavior

Filipino moral behavior is thoroughly relationship-oriented virtue ethics. Virtue ethics is a moral theory
that emphasizes character and virtue (See lesson 2).

What are the key concepts to understand Filipino virtue ethics?

Loób and kapwa are the pillars that support a special collection of virtues dedicated to strengthening and
preserving human relationships.
1. Loób. The literal translation of the word loób is ‘inside.’ The word loób can mean physical objects like
houses or pots. When loob is used to talk about a person, it refers to the person’s relational will (his will
towards his kapwa), not the physical insides of persons, such as their bodily organs (lamang-loob). Loob is
not a disembodied, subjective view of the self. It is will always be directed towards something, especially
towards other people. According to Jose de Mesa, “Loob, apart from referring to the core of personhood,
also states what kind of core is in a relationship. Loob, one may say, is a relational understanding of the
person in the lowland Filipino context.” Loob must be understood in tandem with the concept of kapwa.
Loob has no meaning in isolation. Loob as the will is always in relationship to something (world, spiritual
entities, kapwa).

2. Kapwa. The literal translation of kapwa is ‘other’ or ‘other person.’ According to Virgilio Enriquez, kapwa
is the core value of Filipinos. Ako (ego) and the iba-sa-akin (others) are the same in kapwa psychology.
Kapwa is a recognition of shared identity, an inner self shared with others.

What are the Filipino virtues?

1. Kagandahang- loób. The literal translation of kagandahang- loób is ‘beauty-of-will’ or ‘goodness-of-will.’

According to Enriquez, the concept [kagandahang loob] is manifested through an act of generosity or
kabutihan. To qualify as kagandahang loob, generosity acts must spring spontaneously from the person’s
goodness of heart or kabaitan. A display of kagandahang-loob must have no motive save that of kindness
and inherent graciousness. According to De Castro, an act can be considered to convey kagandahang loob
only if it is done out of kusang loob (roughly, free will); and can be considered to have been done out of
kusang loob if the agent (1) is not acting under external compulsion, (2) is motivated by positive feelings
(e.g., charity, love or sympathy) towards the beneficiary, and (3) is not motivated by the anticipation of
reward. These conditions entail debt-of-good-will relationships where the benefactor has no right to
demand reciprocity, but the beneficiary has a ‘self-imposed’ obligation to repay kagandahang loob with
kagandahang loob. The purest form of kagandahang-loob is shown when the kapwa is in desperate
weakness and need.

2. Utang-na-loób. The literal translation of utang-na loób is ‘debt-of-will.’ An example of utang-na- loób is
the parent-child relationship, especially the mother’s relationship. The mother has given the child his very
existence, carried him in her womb for nine months, and nourished and protected him into adulthood. The
child should acknowledge this and be grateful and must strive to repay her somehow. In Filipino society, it
is common for children to take care of their parents when they are old and infirm. To send them to a ‘home
for the elderly’ is considered a kind of negligence.

There is a cyclical or alternating dynamic between kagandahang-loob and utang-na-loob. As they constitute
one dynamic, utang-na-loób is expected to possess many of the same characteristics as kagandahang-loób,
namely (1) its personal and sympathetic character and (2) being free from external compulsion. To have
utang-na-loób means that one values kapwa relationships and seeks to prolong and strengthen these
relationships. For Filipino virtue ethics, healthy kapwa relationships are ends in themselves and sources of
happiness.

3. Pakiramdam. The literal translation of pakiramdam is ‘feeling,’ but the closest translation is ‘relational
sensitivity’ or ‘empathy.’ According to Rita Mataragnon, in Filipino social interaction, a concern for feelings
and preference for indirect communication gives rise to the phenomenon of pakiramdam, an individual
covert process by which a person tries to feel and understand the feelings and intentions of another. In the
dynamic between kagandahang-loób and utang-na-loób, what should I do or how much should I give back
to fulfill my utang-na-loób? I need to feel or guess if I have repaid my debt to the other person, and this is
accomplished by knowing him and being sensitive to his behavior and the broader context.

Pakikiramdam is a virtue in a culture that values sensitivity that goes beyond direct and spoken
communication. Pakiramdam is a way of reconstructing another person’s feeling state or state of being.
4. Hiya. Hiya can be understood as a form of embarrassment (a painful emotion) or as a virtue. As a virtue,
hiya is a kind of ‘self-control’ that prevents someone from making another person suffer the passion of hiya.
A virtue of hiya is something like temperance. For Aquinas, temperance enables one to control the natural
desires (especially food, drink, and sex) and subject to the rule of reason. The virtue of hiya also involves a
certain restraint; only it restrains the person from selfish impulses that would embarrass others or make
them feel uncomfortable. In general, the virtue of hiya is a quality of one’s loób that makes him control or
sacrifice an individual desire for the sake of the kapwa’s welfare. To be called walang hiya means that you
are only thinking of yourself, of how to satisfy your impulses and desires, even at the cost of your kapwa.

5. Lakas-ng-loob/Bahala na. The literal translation of lakas-ng-loob is courage. According to Alfred Lagmay,
lakas-ng-loob or bahala na is the Filipinos’ positive response to uncertainty. According to Michael Tan,
bahala na isn’t automatic resignation but a way to embolden oneself. Lakas-ng-loob is literally ‘strength of
will” and corresponds to the cardinal virtue of courage or fortitude.

References

Cleofas, J. A. (2019). Towards a practical and empirically grounded account of útang-na-loób as a Filipino
virtue. Kritika Kultura 33/34, 156-179.
Reyes, J. (2015). Loób and Kapwa: Thomas Aquinas and a Filipino Virtue Ethics. Doctoral dissertation,
Université catholique de Louvain.
Reyes, J. (2015). Loob and kapwa: An introduction to Filipino virtue ethics. Asian Philosophy, 25(2), 148-
171.

Lesson 4: Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development

Lawrence Kohlberg (1927-1987) was an American psychologist best known for this theory of moral
development stages. He served as a professor of psychology at the University of Chicago and Harvard
University. He expanded the earlier work of Jean Piaget to explain the moral development of children.
Kohlberg believed that moral development, like cognitive development, follows a series of stages. He used
the idea of moral dilemmas to teach 10 to 16-year-old boys about morality and values. Kohlberg emphasized
that it is the way a personal reason about the dilemma that determines positive moral development.

After presenting people with various moral dilemmas, Kohlberg reviewed people’s responses and placed
them in different moral development stages. Kohlberg identified three levels of moral reasoning: pre-
conventional, conventional, and post-conventional. Each level is associated with increasingly complex
stages of moral development.

Level 1: Preconventional

Preconventional morality is the first stage of moral development and lasts until approximately age 9. At this
level, a child’s sense of morality is externally controlled. Children accept and believe the rules of authority
figures, such as parents and teachers. A child with pre-conventional morality has not yet adopted or
internalized society’s conventions regarding what is right or wrong but instead focuses largely on external
consequences that certain actions may bring.

Stage 1: Obedience and Punishment Orientation

Stage 1 focuses on the child’s desire to obey rules and avoid being punished. For example, an action is
perceived as morally wrong because the perpetrator is punished; the worse the act’s punishment is, the
more “bad” the act is perceived to be.

Stage 2: Instrumental Orientation

Stage 2 expresses the “what’s in it for me?” position, in which right behavior is defined by whatever the
individual believes to be in their best interest. Stage two reasoning shows a limited interest in others’ needs,
only to the point where it might further the individual’s interests. As a result, others’ concern is not based
on loyalty or intrinsic respect, but rather a “you scratch my back, and I’ll scratch yours” mentality. An
example would be when his parents ask a child to do a chore. The child asks, “what’s in it for me?” The
parents offer the child an incentive by giving him an allowance.

Level 2: Conventional

Throughout the conventional level, a child’s sense of morality is tied to personal and societal relationships.
Children continue to accept authority figures’ rules, but this is now due to their belief that this is necessary
to ensure positive relationships and societal order. Adherence to rules and conventions is somewhat rigid
during these stages, and a rule’s appropriateness or fairness is seldom questioned.

Stage 3: Good Interpersonal Relationships Orientation

In stage 3, children want the approval of others and act in ways to avoid disapproval. Emphasis is placed
on good behavior and people being “nice” to others.

Stage 4: Law and Order Orientation

In stage 4, the child blindly accepts rules and conventions because of their importance in maintaining a
functioning society. Rules are seen as being the same for everyone, and obeying rules by doing what one is
“supposed” to do is valuable and essential. Moral reasoning in stage four is beyond the need for individual
approval exhibited in stage three. If one person violates a law, perhaps everyone would have an obligation
and a duty to uphold laws and rules. Most active members of society remain at stage four, where an outside
force predominantly dictates morality.

Level 3: Postconventional

Throughout the post-conventional level, a person’s sense of morality is defined in more abstract principles
and values. People now believe that some laws are unjust and should be changed or eliminated. This level
is marked by a growing realization that individuals are separate entities from society and that individuals
may disobey rules inconsistent with their principles. Post-conventional moralists live by their ethical
principles—principles that typically include fundamental human rights as life, liberty, and justice—and view
rules as useful but changeable mechanisms rather than absolute dictates that must be obeyed without
question. Because post-conventional individuals elevate their moral evaluation of a situation over social
conventions, their behavior, especially at stage six, can sometimes be confused with those at the pre-
conventional level. Some theorists have speculated that many people may never reach this level of abstract
moral reasoning.

Stage 5: Social Contract Orientation

In stage 5, the world is viewed as holding different opinions, rights, and values. Such perspectives should
be mutually respected as unique to each person or community. Laws are regarded as social contracts rather
than rigid edicts. Those that do not promote the general welfare should be changed when necessary to meet
the greatest good for the greatest number of people. This is achieved through majority decisions and
inevitable compromise. Democratic government is theoretically based on stage five reasoning.

Stage 6: Universal Ethical Principle Orientation

In stage 6, moral reasoning is based on abstract reasoning using universal ethical principles. Generally, the
chosen principles are abstract rather than concrete and focus on ideas such as equality, dignity, or respect.
Laws are valid only insofar as they are grounded in justice, and a commitment to justice carries with it an
obligation to disobey unjust laws. People choose the ethical principles they want to follow, and if they violate
those principles, they feel guilty. In this way, the individual acts because it is morally right to do so (and not
because they want to avoid punishment). It is in their best interest, it is expected, it is legal, or previously
agreed upon. Although Kohlberg insisted that stage six exists, he found it difficult to identify individuals
who consistently operated at that level.

Reference

Lumen Learning (N.d.) Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development. Retrieved from

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/teachereducationx92x1/chapter/kohlbergs-stages-of-moral-
development/

Lesson 5: Scott Rae’s 7 Step Moral Reasoning Model

Case: Confidentiality or Compassion

You are a mid-level manager for a company that creates applications for multiple platforms (PC, tablet,
smartphone, etc.) that serve the real estate industry. Due to a recent downturn in the market, the industry
is undergoing one of its periodic contractions. The business has been decreasing for your company. Since
it’s hard to know how long the downturn will last, the company’s top management has determined that a
reduction in force is necessary. You are aware of who in your division will be laid off, and you are under a
mandate for confidentiality until these layoffs are formally announced.
One of the people who report to you in your division, Todd, has become your good friend when you
two have worked together. Your wives have become friends, and your kids are roughly the same age, play
together, and get along well. You regularly spend time with them socially outside of work. They have
recently bought a house not far from where you live, and they have their third child on the way. Todd plays
a key role in a major project that is roughly 6–8 weeks from completion. Todd is understandably very
nervous about the prospect of being laid off, as he should be since you know that he is on the list of those to
be laid off. During one of the times when your families are together, he informs you that he’s been offered
another job, but it doesn’t pay quite as well as his current job and involves a much longer commute, which
will take away from his family time in the evenings. He would rather stay in his current job but also does
not want to turn this job down if he is laid off from his current one. He is aware that you know who is on
the layoff list. He also knows that you are bound by confidentiality about who will be laid off. Even if you
were not so bound, your company needs Todd to finish up this project, and if he took another job, the project
would suffer and be significantly delayed. Todd has asked you to help him out and give him a “heads up” if
he’s on the layoff list so he can make a wise decision about this other job opportunity. Your good friend has
put you in a challenging position, having to weigh your obligation to your company against your friendship
with Todd.

A model for making decisions

To address adequately the ethical dilemmas that people regularly encounter, Rae presents a procedure for
making moral decisions. He offers it not as a formula that will automatically generate the “right” answer to
an ethical problem but rather as a model designed to make sure that the right questions are asked in the
process of ethical deliberation.

1. Gather the Facts. Frequently, ethical dilemmas can be resolved simply by clarifying the facts of the case
in question. You may find that you have a different sort of dilemma, not a moral one. For example, you
might discover that you have a communication breakdown that has created a dilemma that can be solved
simply by facilitating a conference that brings clear and timely communication. Or you may find that you
have a strategic dilemma instead of a moral one, where the issues involved are morally neutral. When you
have a genuine ethical dilemma, gathering the facts is the essential first step that must be taken before any
ethical analysis and reflection. In analyzing a case, we need to know all the available facts. Usually, there is
time to ask questions, clarify information, and gather additional facts. Thus, to make an intelligent, ethical
decision, one needs to ask two primary questions: “What do we know?” and “What do we need to know?

2. Determine the Ethical Issues. Ethical issues are stated in terms of legitimate competing interests or
goods. These competing interests are what create an ethical dilemma. Remember, an ethical dilemma is
defined as a conflict between two or more value/virtue-driven interests. That is, moral values and virtues
must support the competing interests to have a genuine ethical dilemma. If you cannot identify any
underlying virtues/values, then you may have some other kind of dilemma, not a moral one. Participants
in these dilemmas typically hold to their positions with substantial passion because deeply held ethical
values and virtues drive them.

3. Determine what virtues/principles have a bearing on the case. In any ethical dilemma, certain virtues
and moral values are central to the competing positions. It is critical to identify these principles and virtues.
In some cases, you will need to determine whether some principles are weighted more heavily than others.

4. List the alternatives. Part of the creative thinking involved in resolving an ethical dilemma involves
developing alternative courses of action.

5. Compare the alternatives with the virtues/principles. At this point, the task is to eliminate alternatives
according to the moral principles/virtues that have a bearing on the case. In many instances, the case will
be resolved since the principles will eliminate all alternatives except one.

6. Consider the consequences. If the principles do not yield a clear decision, then you must consider the
consequences of the remaining available alternatives. Try to estimate how beneficial are the positive
consequences and how severe are the negative ones.

7. Decide. Deliberation cannot continue indefinitely. At some point, you must make a decision.

Applying the model

1. Gather the facts. Relevant facts, in this case, are as follows:

• Your company makes software applications for the real estate industry.
• These applications are designed for multiple formats, such as smartphones, personal computers, and
tablets.
• There is a downturn in the real estate market that is affecting your company’s revenue. These downturns
occur periodically in the industry.
• It’s not clear how long the real estate downturn will last.
• You are the manager of a division in the company, and you are aware that the downturn in business has
prompted a discussion by your bosses about layoffs.
• The layoffs have not been announced yet, but they are coming. You know that you will lay off several people
in your division, but the company has ordered all managers to hold that information confidential.
• Your good friend Todd is one of those being laid off.
• Todd’s family has become friends with yours. They have recently bought a house and are expecting their
third child.
• Todd has been offered another job, but it reduces pay and involves a significantly longer commute.
• Todd is essential to a current project that is 6–8 weeks from completion. You are afraid that if Todd leaves
for this other job, the project will be significantly delayed.
• Todd has asked you directly if he is on the layoff list

Information you need to know:

• If Todd took this other job, how delayed would his current project be?
• What risk is there to you and your job security if it became known that you breached confidentiality?

2. Determine the ethical issues. It’s a conflict between confidentiality and compassion.

3. What virtues/values have a bearing on the case? You have an obligation of friendship and compassion
toward your friend Todd and his family. He’s not just another employee; he’s your friend. In contrast, you
have an obligation of loyalty to your company, to protect their privacy and hold their private information
confidential. You are obligated to pursue your company’s best interests, and that’s an obligation that’s
renewed each time you see your paycheck deposited into your bank account. You have a moral duty to
fairness, such that telling Todd and no one else would constitute being unfair to those not told in advance.

4. List of alternatives. Two options are apparent—to tell Todd that he’s on the layoff list or maintain
confidentiality. Each option has both an indirect and a direct way of accomplishing their respective end.

5. Compare the alternatives with the principles. There does not seem to be an alternative that satisfies all
the principles/virtues. Thus, there is no clear decision that can produce a “win-win” solution where all the
relevant virtues/values are fulfilled. It seems that to resolve this dilemma, you must choose. There seem to
be good reasons for both choices. Appeal to virtues/principles will not resolve the dilemma at this point.

6. Consider the consequences. If you decide to tell Todd, then some of the positive consequences will likely
be that he will make a fully informed decision about the other job, protect his family and their well-being,
and maintain a harmonious friendship with you your family. Negative consequences include his leaving an
important project prematurely and you being at risk for breaching confidentiality (the likelihood of
someone finding out is difficult to predict). If you elect to maintain confidentiality, positive consequences
include safeguarding your position in the company since there is no policy violation, protecting the
company from harm, and protecting yourself and other managers from other requests to disclose this
information. Negative consequences include harm to your friendship with Todd and likely with his family
too, Todd’s inability to make a fully informed decision about the new job opportunity, and perhaps your
sense of guilt/regret at the thought of “betraying” your friend.

7. Decide. What would you decide in this case? Which virtues/principles are the weightiest? Would you
include others? Which alternatives are the most viable? Would you suggest others? Which consequences
are the most severe? Do you think others will occur?

Reference

Rae, S. (2018). Moral choices: An introduction to ethics. Zondervan Academic.