Sie sind auf Seite 1von 12

NOTES ON MORAL DELIBERATION

Nemesio S. Que, SJ
________________________________

"Notes on Moral Deliberation" is my attempt to put order into some thoughts on mak-
ing moral decisions. There is no prescription for making good moral decisions. Different
people will have different ways of deciding. But it is important, I think, to have some kind
of a framework to fall back on. In the following, I will discuss a framework for moral dis-
cernment. But before I do that, I will first define and clarify certain terms and contexts
needed for the discussion.
________________________________
1. Ethics of Being and Ethics of Doing

In the past, Christian ethics has been more readily understood in terms of guidelines
for moral living, or what is also called Ethics of Doing. This ethics considers the guidelines a
person must follow to attain his final goal in the light of Christian faith and of reason. This
understanding of ethics focuses on moral norms that must be followed. It is associated ex-
clusively with behavior guided by rules. But actions are always expressions of a person.
Moral goodness is a quality of the person, constituted not by rule-keeping behavior alone,
but by cultivating certain virtues, attitudes, and outlooks. Furthermore, there is the danger
of losing sight of the Christian moral life as pertaining to a way of life guided by the para-
digmatic story of Jesus Christ. While we are certainly called to do what is right as Christians,
we are first of all called to be loving persons in the imitation of Christ.1
But we cannot, on the other hand, underestimate the importance of action. There is
the biblical metaphor that says the good tree bears good fruit and the bad tree bears bad
fruit. Or as Aristotle remarks in his Nicomachean Ethics, there is also an act that creates.
In other words, actions are not simply the results of character or habit; they can also create
the very same character that we want to become.

Another understanding of Christian ethics stresses being rather than doing Ethics of
Being. This is also known as Character Ethics. (In contemporary philosophical language, this
is also referred to by its Aristotelian link Virtue ethics.) This view is concerned primarily
with the kind of person a human being and a Christian ought to be. It focuses on what is
happening to the person performing the act rather than on actions the person performs. It
focuses on

patterns of actions, or the habits we acquire, the vision we have of life, the values
and convictions or beliefs we live by, the intentions we have, the dispositions
which ready us to act as well as the affections which move us to do what we be-
lieve to be right.2

The ethics of being emphasizes the formation of character, patterns of action (what
Aristotle calls habits), the right vision of life, basic values and convictions which move a
person to do what he or she believes is the right thing to do.

1 R. M. Gula, Reason Informed by Faith (New York: Paulist Press, 1989), 7.


2 Ibid.
Foundations of Moral Values - 28

Unlike the ethics of doing, this view looks at the whole person.3 We are not, however,
saying that doing is not important. Doing is significant to the extent that it creates the
kind of character we ought to become. Moreover, we cannot really know the kind of per-
son we are independently of our actions. We manifest our being through our doing,
even if we know that our doing does not quite capture everything that we are.
An appropriate insight into the nature of morality, I think, involves a synthesis of the
two perspectives presented above. There must be a healthy harmony between an ethics of
being and an ethics of doing. After all the questions we are wont to raise include
What sorts of persons ought we to be, and what sorts of actions ought we to perform to
become the persons we ought to be?

________________________________
2. Religious faith and Reason

Today, more people accept the intimate relationship between faith and reason more
readily. They understand that genuine faith is reasonable and that reason, on the other hand,
as it wanders and wonders, also clings to faith. Reason, in other words, is not inimical to
faith. Gula strongly suggests this intimate relationship in his description of moral discern-
ment. He says

As people of faith, we believe that our moral decisions are not simply a matter of
solving a problem. Rather, they are a graced response to Gods presence and ac-
tion in our lives. As people of faith, we believe that every decision is an opportu-
nity to respond to God, who is present in the here and now inviting us to a more
abundant life. Discernment is the process of discovering the course of action most
fitting to what our fundamental relationships with God demands.4

Making moral decisions from the point of view of faith looks for the right thing to
do in light of our fundamental relationship in life our commitment to God.5

As Christians, the moral life is a call to find out the will of Godwhat God requires of us.
Reason helps us to discover the call of God in each situation we find ourselves. On the other
hand, moral discernment is something more than well reasoned out deliberation. It is a
graced exercise of faith seeking to express itself in action.6
The relationship between faith and reason is paralleled by the link of moral theology to
Philosophical Ethics (sometimes referred to simply as Ethics or Morality). What is the
difference between the two? The following distinction is from the perspective of theology:
Philosophical Ethics draws its insights into how we ought to be and live only from reason.
What is moral is what is right by reason. It excludes the positive revelation of the Old and
New Testament as source of its moral knowledge and guidance.7

3 Note that this view of ethics fits well the notion of Fundamental Option as a way of
evaluating a Christians actions.
4 Gula, Moral Discernment, 47.
5 Ibid., 48.
6 Ibid.
7 Karl H. Peschke, SVD, Christian Ethics: Moral Theology in the Light of Vatican II, Vol. 1: General
Moral Theology (Manila: Divine Word Publications, 1996), 4. Although ethicists do not seem to be
Moral Deliberation - 29

Some draw the distinction in the ultimate goal espoused by both: moral theology would
deal with the supernatural final goal of man, moral philosophy with a merely natural goal.
But this (again from the perspective of theology) does not seem justified because in the
concrete order of salvation there exists only one final goal common to all mankind which
derives from the royalty of Christ over our present world.8
Even as we stress the close link between religious faith and morality, we must not, how-
ever, make the mistake of reducing the moral life to religious faith. Most religions advocate
high ethical standards, true. But if ethics were reduced to religion, then, only religious people
would be ethical. But as a matter of fact, the atheist can be as moral as the saint. Religion
can set high ethical standards and can motivate the person to behave ethically. However,
ethics cannot be confined to religious faith.9

________________________________
3. The Ultimate End of the Moral Life

Various philosophers present different end-goals for human existence. Aristotle, rep-
resenting Greek sentiment, proposes happiness as that which all things aim. Others would
think that world order is the goal of all our strivings. Still some would suggest that there is
no such goal that doing the right thing is for its own sake.
In Christian morality however, faith dictates the ultimate goal of moral action and so di-
rects reason to its ultimate end. Peschke says that the moral character of human actions is
essentially determined by their relation to Gods will. . . . Mans response to this calling de-
termines the morality of his actions and of his entire way of life.10 What Peschke is saying is
that the moral life of a Christian can be understood as his attempt to respond to Gods call
a call to be more human, to be a true Christian. This response is not just a private and indi-
vidual response. The calling of each man and woman is . . . not isolated and without rela-
tion to the common calling of mankind.11 The responsive character of morality is the
immediate consequence of the theological doctrine that God is the creator of the universe
who has arranged everything according to his purpose, and man is his creature who has re-
ceived a task from him to be fulfilled.12
The moral life is thus basically a response to the will of God. It is our response to the
invitation of God to commune with him, and to serve him. But what is the proper re-
sponse? In other words, is there any more specific criterion by which we determine what
response is in accord or discord with Gods will?

The common nature of men and the universal character of the word of God in
Scripture point to a common goal and purpose of men. . . . Mans final goal is the
ultimate criterion for the moral quality of an action. Those human actions are

particular about the source of morality so long as what is derived is rational and can be justified
rationally.
8 Ibid, 5.
9 What is Ethics?, Markulla Center for Applied Ethics, www.scu.edu
10 Peschke, 13.
11 Ibid.
12 Ibid., 14.
Foundations of Moral Values - 30

good which contribute to the realization of the final goal; and those actions are
bad which lead man away from this goal and obstruct its realization.13

But what is this ultimate goal of the human being? Discovering this is important for our
understanding of Christian morality because a definite view concerning the goal of a
meaningful life enters in every ethical reflection as the condition of its content.14
No temporal, transitory value can establish an unconditional, ultimate claim. Such a
claim can only emanate from an absolute, supreme value and purpose, i.e., from a purpose
rooted in the divine being and will.
Therefore, no less than Gods will can provide ultimate purpose and meaning to human
life.15
God is the end of the human being and all of creation. It is this that gives a sense of
direction to the moral life. Human beings are to act in accord with their final end com-
munion with God. The moral life which has God as its end is guided by those principles
which are in accord with Gods purposes.16 More concretely, the moral vocation of the
Christian is to foster communion with God through worship, prayer and contemplation.
This includes, rather than excludes, the obligation to cooperate in the development of the
world (perfection of creation), because Gods glory is achieved by the unfolding of the
Creators work and the realization of the divine plan in history.
Such unfolding of Gods glory is accomplished by several basic tasks Man is to har-
ness the potentialities of the earth and to develop nature by his work, but at the same time
also to guard and to keep it.
In a like manner, man is to develop himself. Human activity proceeds from man: it is
also ordered to him. The welfare of the human person comprises the fulfillment of the
basic needs of food, clothing, housing and a life in peace and liberty.
As it is for the individual, so it is also for the community (society). For God did not
create man for life in isolation, but for the formation of social unity.17

Summary: Moral reflection arrives at two important features of mans moral vocation or
ultimate aim: the Glory of God and the care of the world. The two are not mutually exclu-
sive. It does seem that the glory of God can be attained also through the care of the world.

________________________________
4. Justification and Rationalization.

We hold certain "central" beliefs, e.g., wrongness of torturing people for pleasure or
political reasons, lying, using others for our own ends, etc. Often, we use moral theories or
explanations to justify these beliefs. And yet, our use of the theories or principles can be
very irresponsible or thoughtless. Let us distinguish between rationalization and justification to
make clear our meaning here.

13 Ibid., 22.
14 Ibid.
15 Ibid., 40.
16 Richard M. Gula, Reason Informed by Faith, 52.
17 Ibid., 44-47. We have here a very good justification for the moral concerns of ecology and care
of nature and our resources.
Moral Deliberation - 31

Rationalization has the goal of rigidly keeping our beliefs. Justification, on the other hand,
has the goal of making our beliefs consistent and rational.
When we rationalize our moral beliefs, we do not care about being rational or consistent.
All we care about is sticking to our belief even against evidence that discredits it. On the
other hand, when we justify our moral beliefs, rationality demands that we are consistent, and
consistency here includes practice. We are convinced of our moral beliefs not because they
happen to be everyone else's beliefs or they strike our fancy, but because we have reasons to
back them up and hence know that they are the right beliefs to act by.
For Example: If we believe that our opinions should be heard and respected, then we
should also make the same demand on ourselves. The same belief should extend to all areas
of our life. Again, if we believe that abortion is wrong because life should be respected at all
times, then we should not rush into supporting capital punishment without giving it much
thought and consideration. Good moral reasoning demands that we are consistent in the
beliefs we hold.
Moral reasoning enables us to think clearly and systematically when confronted with
moral situations about which our moral beliefs may be shaky or even unformed.
Moral reasoning also allows us to understand and respect the viewpoints of others.
Once we see the principles and concepts that underlie other views, moral disagreement is
less likely to lead to accusations of bad intentions.
Consider, for example, the abortion controversy. Each side accuses the other of bad
faith but no one bothers to inquire into the differing theory of right conduct that would
make sense of the opposing view. In other words, moral reasoning makes it possible for us
to see how a reasonable and well-intentioned person can hold a moral view different from
our own.
________________________________
Suggested Framework for Moral Deliberation

Given the importance and complexity of moral decision-making, it is most wise to pro-
vide a framework for the process.

1. First we must ask: Is there a moral dilemma? Very often, the inability to discern
whether or not there is a moral dilemma can lead to undesirable consequences unnecessary
tension, drastic decision and action, etc.
Not every choice we make needs to be deliberated upon as a moral dilemma. Choosing
what clothes to wear today, what food to eat for lunch while involving some tension, are
not what moral dilemma is all about.
True--we should be concerned about whether or not our choice, decision, or action is
moral. We should take an interest in what we do, and think that our decisions and actions
have great importance or significance for our own lives and for the lives of others. But we
must first make sure that there is a moral question involved.

2. Trigger Event: Identifying and setting up the Ethical Problem

What is the ethical problem? The ISSUE After making sure that there is indeed an ethical
problem, it is equally important to realize that every ethical problem has more than one
component and that not every component involves an ethical decision. Thus, it helps to be
able to state or define, succinctly, the ethical issue involved in the case and to make sure that
this is not confused with other elements of the problem. For instance, we should be able to
separate a client's right to advertise from a possible ethical problem involving the way the
product is to be advertised. And the issue should be stated clearly. The question is not
Foundations of Moral Values - 32

whether the client should advertise, but whether the client should advertise in a particular
manner that might be ethically problematic.

3. Reasoning Process to Develop an Ethically Sensitive Decision

a. What are the relevant facts? We need to list only the facts that bear on the ethical deci-
sion. Sometimes, we arrive at wrong moral decisions because we have not really taken the
relevant facts into consideration, or we have taken more than the necessary facts into con-
sideration.

b. Who are the stakeholders? It is important to identify the stakeholders who will be af-
fected by the ethical decision to be made. This is also the first point at which ethical theories
might be applied since the idea of moral stakeholders can be tied both to consequential and
non-consequential theories. For example, from a utilitarian perspective, the interest of the
majority must be taken into consideration therefore, the majority stakeholders must be
recognized as a group. Non-consequential theories (duty-based) require us to be aware of all
stakeholders potentially affected by our decision. Recognized duties like justice, gratitude,
self-improvement, etc. allow us not only to list stakeholders but also to decide on who they
are. For example, if, as a reporter, you are obligated by the duty of fidelity to honor your
implied contract with the public to give them the news you want them to read, that reading
public must be listed as a stakeholder in your decision.
At this stage too, it will help to get to know the perspective of the stakeholders. This
can be done by stepping into the shoes of the various claimants and trying to determine
honestly, what they would prefer you do in this situation. This is one of the most difficult
tasks in ethical decision making. The key here is to try your hardest to see the problem from
their perspectives.

c. What are the available options? It is important to list down at least three. As Aristotle
remarks, there are at least two, and these two often represent the extremes. Nothing is ever
either black or white; sometimes one is forced to think in terms of a compromise, even if
that compromise doesnt exactly conform to your personal notion of what is the right thing
to do. A genuine Golden Mean is not simply a watered-down decision; in fact, it bears the
marks of the internal struggle that accompanies every bit of hard thinking. It is also at this
stage that reason struggles to transcend what we feel.

d. In considering and evaluating the options, it will help to be guided by the following ap-
proaches.18 This is the point at which the various sources of Christian morality, ethical theo-
ries and principles come into play. One will discover here that there is much conflict among
these. There are no easy solutions. While one person may use utilitarianism to support his
decision (for instance, to run the story in the interest of the many), another may decide to
cite Kants proscription against using a person as a means to an end (for instance, for not
running a story because one must respect the privacy of a person). What is important here is
to use only those justifications that apply directly to ones decision.

Christian Sources. The Christian moral life derives from (and therefore, moral decisions
should be inspired by) the sacred books of the Old and New Testaments, in particular from
the ideas, values and concerns of Jesus Christ. In other words, the moral teachings of the

18 The following is a simplified discussion of the theories and principles that will be tackled at
length in our lectures.
Moral Deliberation - 33

biblical writings should be consulted. Since we are a Church a Christian community our
moral decisions should also be informed by the official teaching of the ecclesiastical magiste-
rium and the concrete praxis adhered to by the Church. Ecclesiastical magisterium here re-
fers to the teachings of the councils and the pope, bishops conferences.
Christian reflection has concluded that all beings not only come from God as their First
Cause but also return to Him as to their perfection as the Final Cause. Thus, the Final Goal
of the human being according to which he acts deliberately by reason is God Himself. We
can also glean that the ethical life is one that pursues the absolute Good as its end, its ful-
fillment and perfection. As Peschke writes

If man has been given an objective final end by the Creator, he will be under the
obligation to make this objective end his subjective end in other words, to strive
after it. And when he looks to that end, an order which has to be followed will
become visible to him: the moral order. This moral order is shown to us through
the moral law.19

Utilitarianism. Conceived in the 19th century by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill,
this theory suggests that ethical actions are those that provide the greatest balance of good
over evil for the most number of people. There is hardly a case in which carrying out an
option will not effect in some harm. By listing the options and concomitant harms, one is
made to weigh the amount of potential harm involved in each alternative and to understand
that avoiding harm is practically impossible. As utilitarians suggest, in the end, it may be best
to choose the option that will produce the least amount of harm. That option (decision) will
be chosen that will produce the greatest benefits and the least harm.

Rights. What is a right? Simply stated, a right is a justified claim on others. For exam-
ple, if I have a right to property, then I have a justified claim to protect my belongings
against those who might steal them. The reverse is also true: Others have the responsibility
to respect my property. Usually, this claim to a right is acknowledged not just by the indi-
vidual but also by society more concretely, the Constitution, which guarantees all sorts of
rights.
This theory has its roots in the philosophy of the 18th century philosopher Immanuel
Kant and others. He suggests that what makes human beings different from mere things is
that they have dignity based on their ability to choose freely what they will do with their
lives. People, because they are rational, have a fundamental moral right to have these
choices respected. People are not objects to be manipulated or used as means to ends. To
treat a person as a mere means is to use a person to advance ones own interest. On the
other hand, to treat a person as an end is to respect that persons dignity by allowing him the
freedom to choose for himself.
This basic right of the person to choose for himself is often used to justify other rights.
First, we have so-called negative rights right to privacy, the right not to be killed, or the right
to do what one wants with ones property, etc. These are negative rights because each one
imposes a negative duty or obligation on us for example, the right to privacy imposes the
obligation on us not to intrude into the private activities of a person. Second, we also have
the so-called positive or welfare rights. These are rights that provide something that people need
to secure their well being like the right to an education, the right to food, the right to
medical care, the right to housing, or the right to a job. These positive rights flow from the

19 Peschke, Christian Ethics, 64.


Foundations of Moral Values - 34

fundamental right to freedom which implies that every human being has a fundamental right
to what is necessary to secure a minimum level of well being.
Sometimes, the rights of individuals can come into conflict. In cases like this, we need
to examine the interests at stake and decide which of the two is the more crucial for securing
human dignity. Sometimes too the social costs or the injustice that would result from re-
specting a right can be too great. So, while morality certainly calls for respect of individual
rights, we must also be aware of its social repercussions. We must also consider that sense
of community, shared values and the common good that lend itself to an ethics of care,
compassion, and concern for others.20

Common-Good. One can trace the beginnings of the notion of common good to Plato,
Aristotle, etc. The notion supposes that the good of individuals is inextricably linked to the
good of the community. Thus for Aristotle, ethics is really a prologue to politics. More re-
cently, John Rawls defined the common good as certain general conditions that are . . .
equally to everyones advantage.
The common good consists primarily of having social institutions, and environments
working effectively for the benefit of all people. An example of a particular common good
would be the public health care system. The maintenance of the common good requires the
cooperative efforts of citizens. But these efforts pay off -in the form of a good or goods to
which all members of society have access, and from whose enjoyment no one can be easily
excluded.21

Virtue. This theory is similar to the Ethics of Being that we distinguished from
Ethics of Doing. It assumes that there are certain ideals toward which we should strive,
which provide for the full development of our humanity. We discover these ideals by re-
flecting on what kind of people we have the potential to become. Virtues are attitudes or
dispositions that enable us to be and to act in ways that develop our highest potential. They
enable us to pursue the ideals we have adopted. Examples of virtues are honesty, courage,
compassion, integrity, fairness, temperance, prudence, etc. When one uses the virtue theory
in making a decision, the fundamental question is What kind of person will I become if I
make this decision? There is emphasis on be-ing.
We develop virtues through learning and through practice. Aristotle suggested that
virtues are habituated. Thus, once acquired, a virtue becomes a characteristic of a person.
For example, a person who has developed the virtue of generosity is referred to as a gener-
ous person because he tends to exhibit this characteristic in all that he does.
A very important idea that is at the heart of the virtue approach is community. A
persons character traits are not developed in isolation, but always within and by the com-
munities to which he belongs the family, church, school, etc. Thus, this virtue approach
invites us to pay attention to the well being of our communities because they also shape the
kind of person we become.
The moral life, then, is not simply following moral rules. It is also a matter of trying to
determine the kind of persons we should be and of attending to the development of charac-
ter within our communities and ourselves.22

20 Rights, Markulla Center for Applied Ethics.


21 The Common Good, Markulla Center for Applied Ethics.
22 Ethics and Virtue, Markulla Center for Applied Ethics.
Moral Deliberation - 35

Justice and Fairness. No idea has been more consistently linked to ethics and morality
than that of justice. But what does justice mean? In traditional terms, justice means giving
each person what he or she deserves, or what is his or her due. Thus, justice requires that a
man is paid according to the work he has done. Or burdens and benefits should be distrib-
uted equally among members of a group.
But what criteria should we use to determine what is somebodys due?
The most fundamental principle of justice is one first defined by Aristotle: Equals should
be treated equally and unequals unequally. This principle can also be expressed thus
Individuals should be treated the same, unless they differ in ways that are relevant to the
situation in which they are involved. For example, if Jim and Jane do the same work, and
there are no relevant differences between them or the work they are doing, then in justice
they should be paid the same wages. If Jim is paid more because he is a man, then, justice
has not been served.
There are, however, some differences that can be justifiable criteria for treating people
differently. The Church, for instance, advocates what it calls a preferential option for the
poor. This preference is premised on the fact that the poor are from the very beginning
already unequal relative to the wealthy. Because of this social disparity, there are opportu-
nities for human development that are out of their reach. In dealing with them, then, there is
a need to equalize things first before justice can be served. In other words, there is room
here not just for justice, but justice as fairness.
Justice as fairness, then, is a central part of ethics and should be given due considera-
tion in our moral lives.

Summary of points. These various considerations and approaches for moral decision-
making may also be stated in the following questions:

What does the Church (Christian sources of morality) say about the pertinent issue?
What option brings me to my ultimate end God Himself?
What benefits and what harms will each option produce, and which alternative will
lead to the best overall consequence?
What moral rights do the affected parties have, and which option best respects
those rights?
Which course of action advances the common good?
Which decision enables me to be and act in ways that develop my highest potential
as a person?
Which option treats everyone the same, except where there is a morally justifiable
reason not to, and does not show favoritism or discrimination?

e. Determine the Most Appropriate Best Course of Action. On the basis of the evaluation done
on the various options, we must now determine the best course of action the moral thing
to do. Ethicists claim that this is the most difficult part of the process of moral decision-
making. It requires courage especially when reason suggests one way and what we feel
another way.
Some people make their decisions even prior to the reasoning process. When this hap-
pens, it is possible to end up with a decision that one can then rationalize but not really
justify.23

23 See earlier discussion on the difference between justification and rationalization.


Foundations of Moral Values - 36

f. Double-Checking ones decision. It is important to take a second look at the decision to be


made. The following are suggested ways of doing precisely that:

First, we must see to it that our arguments are consistent. Ethics is supposed to provide
us with a guide for moral living, and to do so, it must be rational that is, free of
contradictions.
Second, we must also ask if our arguments are both valid and sound. A valid argument is
one whose premises logically entail its conclusion. An invalid argument on the other hand is
one whose premises do not entail its conclusion. In an invalid argument, one can accept the
premises as true and reject the conclusion without any contradiction. A sound argument, on
the other hand, has true premises and valid reasoning. An unsound argument employs invalid
reasoning or has at least one false premise.
Third, perhaps we can ask the following questions: What are the best and worse-case
scenarios if I choose this particular option? Can I honestly live with myself if I make this
decision? Will I be able to defend this decision to that claimant who has lost the most or
been harmed the most?
Finally, our decision must be enabling rather than dis-abling. There are decisions that
prevent us from acting any more fruitfully or effectively. These decisions cannot be moral!
After all, a moral decision or action is one that liberates us develops our potentialities as a
person. A decision that dis-ables us prevents our growth as persons.
Catholic moral and pastoral traditions have always made the distinction between
ought and can. This distinction is also helpful in double-checking our decisions. We
quote Richard Gula here

Ought expresses the objective pole of morality. This imperative is what ethical
reflection tries to uncover. Such reflections yield statements of right and wrong,
such as euthanasia is wrong and keeping promises is right. Can expresses
the subjective pole of a persons capacity to choose right or wrong. This is the area
that pastoral guidance needs to respect.24

According to this distinction, the ought refers to the way life ought to be lived. Objective
morality is the world of value that we must confront in making moral decisions. The can,
on the other hand, refers to the art of the possible.

The subjective pole of morality has to do with the behavior that flows from ones
capacity of knowledge, freedom, and emotion to appreciate moral values, to com-
mit oneself to them, and to choose them freely. Pastoral guidance is concerned
with the ability of a person to fulfill the objective moral order. In other words, it
seeks the best possible expression of basic human goods that this person can make
at this time to satisfy what love demands. Love one another as I have loved you
is a norm for life and so must be followed constantly. But there is a limit to what
can be done by each person at each time in order to live truthfully, compassion-
ately, and respectfully of self and others. To refuse to accept this is to demand per-
fect love from imperfect creatures. To face the reality of human sinfulness and to
accept our limited ability to love is not to dissolve the gospel demand but to rec-
ognize that we are still in need of conversion. We are still on the way to the full
flowering of love.25

24 Gula, Moral Discernment, 107.


25 Ibid., 108.
Moral Deliberation - 37

________________________________
A FINAL NOTE

The final word on moral discernment in a Christian context consists of three important
admonitions.

1. Be rational. Morality, the attempt to be moral in ones decisions and actions, depends
so much on reason on being rational. No matter how much disagreement there is about
the nature and possibility of ethics itself, the minimum demand of ethics is that in any deci-
sion making, one must be rational.
We go through a process of reasoning to arrive at our decision. That is to say, we avoid
making our decision on the basis of feelings alone. Feelings themselves are not bad. In fact,
they are often a sign of moral seriousness. For example: It helps to feel strongly for an issue
that you think is immoral -- like injustice done to the poor, etc. Still, we cannot rely totally
on our feelings alone because
(i) they may be irrational, i.e., nothing more than the products of prejudices, selfishness,
or cultural conditioning.
(ii) people's feelings often tell them exactly opposite things. Both sides cannot be correct.
(iii) feelings are notoriously unstable, i.e., they are continually changing. If moral judg-
ment depends on them, your decision today might not be the same as your decision tomor-
row.
Rather, we must see to it that our moral decision is justified by principles and moral
theories. Our decision must have been arrived at logically (i.e., valid and sound). It should
follow from our premises. The judgment should be entailed by the moral standard and the
facts and other arguments presented. The aim is to be able to support our moral judgment
with reasons and evidence.
Thus, "morality is, first and foremost, a matter of consulting reason: the morally right
thing to do is determined by what there are the best reasons for doing."26

2. Be impartial. (Requirement of justice). Each individual's interests are equally impor-


tant, i.e., there are no "privileged" people. This requirement is nothing more than a pro-
scription against arbitrariness in dealing with people; it is a rule forbidding us from treating
somebody differently from another when there is no good reason for doing so.27

3. Pray. If we are going to approach moral decisions in the light of our Christian faith,
then, prayer is an indispensable context for our deliberation. Without prayer it is hard to
keep our love of God foremost in our consciousness. Without prayer this whole process of
discernment becomes nothing more than a disciplined method for solving a problem.28

The framework here presented does not provide an automatic (read: un-thinking) so-
lution to ethical problems. It is meant merely to help identify most of the important ele-
ments that go into ethical decision-making. In the end, the person must deliberate on the
moral issues himself, keeping a careful eye on both the facts and on the ethical considera-
tions involved.

26 James Rachels, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, 3rd Edition (McGraw Hill College, 1999), 15-19
27 Ibid.
28 Gula, Moral Discernment, 98.
Foundations of Moral Values - 38

________________________________
Sources from the Internet:

______________Worksheet for Ethical Decision Making (http://jcomm.uoregon.edu)

Manuel Velasquez, Claire Andre, Thomas Shanks, SJ & Michael J. Meyer, Thinking Ethi-
cally: A Framework for Moral Decision Making (http://www.scu.edu/SCU/Centers/
Ethics)

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen