Lecture notes 10 REASON AND IMPARTIALITY AS REQUIREMENTS FOR ETHICS PDF

Preview

Summary

MODULE 10REASON AND IMPARTIALITY AS REQUIREMENTS FOR ETHICSIntroduction In this module, students will learn the concepts of reason, morality, and impartiality. It will help them to think rationally what is good and what is bad; and to be just and fair to benefit not themselves but to benefit the maj...

Description

MODULE 10 REASON AND IMPARTIALITY AS REQUIREMENTS FOR ETHICS Introduction In this module, students will learn the concepts of reason, morality, and impartiality. It will help them to think rationally what is good and what is bad; and to be just and fair to benefit not themselves but to benefit the majority. This module gives emphasis on the principle that every person is equally important and to give equal consideration to the interests of majority. Lastly, it will help students to develop their logical, rational and analytical thinking.

Learning Objectives At the end of the topic, students are expected to: a) Discuss the ethical requirement of reason and impartiality. b) Discover different occupations where reasons, impartiality, and morality are part of their professions c) Apply reason and impartiality on the different societal issues. d) Develop possible solutions on the current situation of the country.

Learning Content Reason and Impartiality Humans have not only feelings but also reason, and reason plays a vital role in Ethics. In fact, moral truths are truths of reason; that is, a moral judgement is true if it is espoused by better reasons than the alternatives (De Guzman et al. 2017). Reason is the ability of the mid to think, understand, and form judgments y a process of logic. It is an innate and exclusive human ability that utilizes new or existing information as bases to consciously make sense out of thing while applying logic. It is also associated with thinking, cognition, and intellect (“Reason and Impartiality as Minimum Requirement for Morality”). In the article “Kant and Hume on Morality,” Reason and experience are required for determining the likely effects of a given motive or character trait, so reason does play an important role in moral judgment. According to De Guzman et al. (2017), reason spells the difference of moral judgments from the mere expressions of personal preference. If after eating someone says, “I like a sweet cake,” he is not required to support it with good reasons for that is a statement about his/her personal taste and nothing more. But in the case of moral judgments, they require backing by reasons. In the absence of sensible rationale, they are merely capricious and ignorable. Moral deliberation is a matter of weighing reasons and being guided by them. In understanding the

Ethics- BatStateU

nature of morality, considering reasons is indispensable. Truth in Ethics entails being justified by good reasons. That is, the rightful moral decision involves selecting the option that has the power of reason on its side. Being defined by good reasons, moral truths are objectives in the sense that they true no matter what we might want or think. We cannot make an act moral or immoral just by wishing it to be so, because we cannot merely will that the weight of reason be on its side or against it. And this also explains why morality is not arbitrary. Reason commends what it commends, regardless of our feelings, attitudes, opinions, and desires. Since the connection between moral judgments and reasons is necessary important, then a proposed theory on the nature of moral judgment should be able to give an account for the relation. In focusing on attitudes and feelings, both Emotivism and Subjectivism fail to accomplish this important thing De Guzman et al. 2017). As stated in the article “Reason and Impartiality as Minimum Requirement for Morality,” impartiality is manifesting objectivity. It is the quality of being unbiased and objective in creating moral decision – underscoring that a (morally) impartial person makes moral decisions relative to the welfare of the majority and not for specific people alone. According to De Guzman et al. (2017), impartiality involves the idea that each individual’s interest and point of view are equally important. Also called evenhandedness or fair-mindedness, impartiality is a principle of justice holding that decisions ought to be based on objective criteria, rather than on the basis of bias, prejudice, or preferring the benefits to one person over another for improper reasons. Impartiality in morality requires that we give equal and/or adequate consideration to the interests of all concerned parties. The principles of impartiality assumes that every person, generally speaking, is equally important; that is, no one is seen as intrinsically more significant than anyone else. Other ethicists however, suggest that some clarifications is required. From the impartial standpoint, to say that no one is seen as intrinsically 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 ethicists supposed that from the impartial point of view, properly conceived, some persons count as more significant, at least in certain ways. A virtous and respectable religious leader maybe supposed to be more significant than a mere maid; so an emergency (say, a building on fire) the decent religious leader ought to be rescued first. The reason, nonetheless, is not that the religious leader is intrinsically more significant; rather, it is that he makes greater contribution to the society (De Guzman et al. 2017).

Why are Reason and Impartiality the Minimum Requirements for Morality? Is someone tells us that a certain action is immoral, we may ask why it is so, and if there is reasonable answer, we may discard the proposition as absurd. Also if somebody utters that a particular act is wrong and explains that it is because it does not happen to fits his taste, then we also do not count his claim as legitimate ethical judgment. Clearly, thus reason is a necessary requirement for morality (De Guzman et al. 2017). In the article “Impartiality,” it was stated that the only respect in which morality requires impartiality is with respect to violating moral rules—for example, those rules prohibiting killing,

Ethics- BatStateU

causing pain, deceiving, and breaking promises. It is only with regard to these kinds of moral rules—those that can be formulated as prohibitions—that it is humanly possible to act impartially with regard to a group large enough to be an appropriate group. As stated in the article “Reason and Impartiality as Minimum Requirement for Morality,” Reason and impartiality become the basic prerequisite for morality as one is excepted to be able to deliver clear, concise, rightful, and appropriate judgments made out of logic and understanding in an unbiased and unprejudiced manner while considering the general welfare to accurately concoct moral decisions....