SAMPLE - A Little Bit of Moral Decision Making

Introduction

Morality is a fascinating topic. The general understanding is that it is a basis for determining right and wrong or the principle that outlines the distinction between what is right and wrong; what is consider good or bad, in a particular situation or society

However, it is not a universal distinction, meaning that not everyone will agree on what is right or wrong. In many cases people will see other people’s actions as morally wrong, though the people carrying out the actions will see them as right.

The term “ethics” is also used when determining what is right and what is wrong. Coupled to this, the terms “moral/morality” and “ethics/ethical” are often used interchangeably. One could say that the term ethics or ethical is usually used regarding laws that govern behaviour in society and therefore is considered a more technical term than morality.

While morality or morals are more ambiguous terms about what is right and wrong. Ethics and morality are discussed in the Search for Meaning and Values section of this course, primarily with Socrates and the Sophists.

Morality is a social construct, i.e. it has been built by each society in which we live. There are actions that occur within Irish society that would not be considered moral in other societies.

For example, the drinking of alcohol is an accepted and, in many cases, expected pastime to partake in. Much of Irish culture is centred around ‘pubs’ and we are famous for it all over the world. However, in Islamic countries, the drinking of alcohol is forbidden and is highly immoral.

This is just a small example of how society fixes morality around what is acceptable in that society or not. Each society is different, and people experience ‘culture shock’ when they visit another countries or societies. They may find it difficult to come to terms with what is expected, allowed and prohibited within this new society or culture.

One could go even so far as to say that each family probably has their own moral construct based on the experiences, beliefs and expectations of the parents, grandparents and children.

All in all, it’s a complicated and fascinating issue; however, the way morality is constructed is the same all around the world but what is believed to be right and wrong is not. When one is discussing one’s morality, a term that can be used is ‘moral compass’.

A compass points to magnetic north shows you which direction you may be traveling so that you can adjust accordingly. Similarly, one’s personal moral compass or conscience actions in the same manner regarding moral issues.

Say for arguments sake that you oppose the death penalty but a person performs an act so disgusting and is likely to do it again. You might then say that in this instance the death penalty is the right course of action to prevent the crime from occurring again.

Here your moral compass points you toward a manner of thinking about what is right and wrong based on the facts or circumstances of an incident. Thus, helping one to judge what is moral in this instance.

The term ‘moral compass’ can be useful when discussing areas of moral conflict when writing answers in this subject.

Useful termsi –

Moral – concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical.

… expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct.

Morality – conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct. quality or character. a doctrine or system of morals

Moral Compass – used in reference to a person's ability to judge what is right and wrong and act accordingly.

Ethics – moral principles that govern a person's behaviour or the conducting of an activity, e.g. medical ethics.

the Common Good – what is most beneficial to the majority of people, or in the interest of all

Moral Conflict – is a moral dilemma which causes conflict in which one has a choice between two or more actions and has moral reasons for choosing their action or position.

Conscience – a person's moral sense of right and wrong, viewed as acting as a guide to one's behaviour.

Amoral – is the state of the absence of morality.

Immoral – is the opposite of moral, it means to deliberately violate accepted principles of right and wrong, e.g. murdering someone even though you know it is wrong to do so

Moral Immaturity – in this case, one’s conscience has not been developed fully, through a lack of education or miseducation

Thinking about Morality Chapter

iiMorality as a natural human phenomenon

A natural phenomenon is something that happens without any assistance from humankind. It is therefore considered to be a natural occurrence. It is natural that water is clear, though at times this is not the case. It is a natural phenomenon that when grass does not get enough water that it wilts and turns brown.

Morality is considered a natural phenomenon, as is human existence. I assume animals also have beliefs in what is right and what is wrong but, in this instance, we are discussing humans and therefore will focus on human morality.

The following are two examples of why morality can be considered a natural human phenomenon:

Guilt is an obvious example of how morality occurs naturally in humans. Each human has their own standard of morality, their own ideas of what is right and wrong. If we adhere to these, we are happy, believing that we are acting just how we should act in all situations. However, if we act or think in a manner that is contrary to these beliefs, we feel guilt.

A real-life example would be if someone believed that lying was morally wrong, but a situation arose where this individual felt that lying to another person was the right thing to do. After the lie, the person who lied is going to experience guilt due to telling a lie and going against their own moral beliefs. They may feel remorse or guilt and think over whether it was the right course of action to take.

Therefore, guilt can be considered an example that shows us that morality is a natural human phenomenon.

A second example that shows that morality is a natural phenomenon are laws or codes of behaviour.

Let’s say a new school has a lot of stairs and on the first day there is congestion on these stairs. Management may add a rule or code of behaviour that tells students and teachers that if you are going up the stairs you must stay on the left and allow others to descend the stairs on the right. A new law or rule has thus been naturally created.

Also, if you got stuck on a small island with a group of your friends. Fairly quickly there would be rules that govern behaviour, things that are morally right in relation to this new and stranded community.

One very important rule, if a little disgusting, is that no one would sleep, eat, sit etc. where the toilet was going to be. Why? It’s disgusting, smelly, unhygienic and unpleasant in every way.

As a result, morality would tell us to make laws, codes of behaviour or rules that prevent us from doing the wrong things and stopping us from eating your lunch in the toilet area. You might also want to create a law that prevents individuals from drinking water from around this area too. Your stomach will thank you.

Again, humans make these rules based on what society views as morally correct or incorrect, thus enabling individuals to act morally right in all situations. And these laws, codes of behaviour and rules are declared an example of how morality is a natural human phenomenon as all rules etc. began in such a manner. Past exam questions

Morality is a natural human phenomenon. Investigate one way in which evidence for this statement can be seen in Ancient Greek civilization. (20 marks)

Chief moral concerns of the ancient civilisations

The Hebrews chief moral concern was with sin. This is evident from the Torah. The books known as Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. These are also the first five books of the Bible.

Torah means ‘the law’ and though it contains much spiritual history of the faith, it also contains the ‘10 Commandments’ and the 613 laws of the Levites, the priests of the old Jewish temple in Jerusalem. The commandments, and the laws governed the actions of the ancient Hebrew people. They still govern many of the actions of the Hebrew descendants, the Jewish people today.

If a Hebrew failed to keep a ‘commandment/law’ they would have committed a sin, which can be consisted a spiritual crime. As God (known by the pseudonym Hashem to Jews) made the laws and commandments that govern moral practices, these must be kept for a person to be judged morally right by Hashem and by Hebrew society.

To sin was to fail morally and to do wrong. One example of this can be seen in the book of Leviticus, chapter 19, which is in the Torah. It says that a person may not wear clothing made from two types of material or to plant a field with two different types of seed. These were moral rules which were adhered to by the Hebrews for them to please Hashem and to be accepted morally within Hebrew society.

SAMPLE

For the ancient Greeks, morality was discussed by the great philosophers like Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and the Sophists. Ethics, another name for morality, is one of the main disciplines of philosophy today.

To simplify this, the ancient Greeks were concerned with being happy as we are today. For them, happiness centred around living in a particular way and following a code of ethical standards.

For Socrates, the first of the “recorded” philosophers, moral living was the purpose and goal of each individual. However, as discussed earlier, we all have our own understanding of right and wrong Socrates disagreed, he believed in a universal understanding of right and wrong. He believed that once it was discovered it would be true for everyone, for all of time! If one were to live by this code of ethics, one would be happy.

He said the same thing about justice. However, in Ancient Greece there were other philosophers other than Socrates who disagreed with his take on ethic; these were the Sophists.

Their belief about right and wrong stemmed from the idea that each of us measure morality against our own personal standard. Therefore, there can be no universal standard for right and wrong; is down to the individual and the circumstance the individual finds themselves in.

For example, if someone is faced with a life or death scenario what do they do? Would they kill another human being to survive if their life is threatened by this individual? Maybe, prior to this incident, they might have believed that killing another person was morally wrong but this event forces them to choose a different moral path.

Again, like the case of Socrates, this moral path will ultimately bring happiness to the individual as in this instance they will believe this is the morally correct course of action. Taking the life of another to save their own

Finally, the Romans. They were concerned with many things, but the morals of the Stoics were some of the most prominent. The Stoics were a group of thinkers during the time of the Roman Empire who believed in temperance or balance. They believed that life was tough but that it is about getting on with it and doing your best each day.

Stoics like Marcus Aurelius, Cicero, Epictetus and Seneca wrote that the key to being balanced is the way that you approach life’s ups and downs in a considered manner. To accept the disappointments and triumphs of life and move on. This balance, also called temperance, was the markings of a true Roman. To face adversity each day, and in doing so better themselves. They believed that this was the right way to act and to be. The many writings of the Stoics suggest that the Romans were concerned with this form of ethics

Past exam questions 2007

Since ancient times people have been concerned about issues of right and wrong. THE HEBREWS THE GREEKS THE ROMANS

Describe a moral issue that people were concerned about in one of the above ancient civilizations. (20 marks)

Past exam question 2017

Outline how a moral issue caused concern for the members of two of the above ancient civilisations. (40 marks)

Moments of ethical change since the Enlightenment.

Morality of War

War is part of human history, but the ways of war have changed. During the Enlightenment, many started to question the morality of war, but it was still very common and this remained the case until the end of the 1940s.

A key moment in the development of the morality of war emerged because of the horrors of the First World War (1914-18). These made many people wish that war would never happen again. Some people called it the “war to end all wars” in which approximately 16.5 million people died.

Prior to the war people romanticised about this form of conflict and boys as young as 13 pretended to be adults just to have the honour of fighting for their “God and Country” However, the war was barbaric and made people question whether it should ever be allowed to happen again. They questioned whether it was an ethical way to resolve conflict.

Another key moment was the Second World War (1939-1945) in which between 62.4-78.4 million people died worldwide. This great loss of life made many revise their view of the morality of war further

This was a war fought because there was no alternative to it, a “just war”. To conquer the evil that had risen in the world at that time, mass warfare was seen as the only solution, a last resort. However, again the huge loss of life and destruction convinced many that war should be avoided at all costs. That war is not moral.

Coupled with this, the development and use of nuclear weapons, commonly known as weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), left the people of the world with no doubt that war should never happen again. That it had become or always had been an evil in and of itself. The use of WMDs would make war very costly, in terms of lives lost and environmental damaged. The mutually assured destruction (MAD) of a nuclear war, meant that war on this scale would destroy the world as we know it forever. Therefore, it had to be stopped and prevented from happening at all costs

The Cuban Missile Crisis is a great example of this. The Americans had WMDs in Turkey on the borders of the USSR (the former Soviet Republic of Russia). The USSR decided to put their WMDs in Cuba, off the coast of the USA. When the American’s discovered this, they blockaded the island so that more missiles or related materials could not land in Cuba. The USA and the USSR went very close to a nuclear war with many on both sides believing it to be the right course of action. However, cooler heads prevailed, and war was avoided - barely. This occurred because people believed that it was no longer ethical or right to go to war.

So now that war is no longer considered to be ethical, what do the people of the world use to resolve their conflicts. The answer is through peaceful protests and pacifism.

Mahatma Gandhi helped liberate the Indian nation from British occupation during the early 20th century with a completely non-violent philosophy and campaign of peaceful protests. The concept called Satyagraha was at the root of this philosophy. Satyagraha means ‘truth force’.

Gandhi said that satyagraha is a weapon of the strong. It allows no violence under any circumstance whatsoever, and it always insists on the truth. The essence of non-violent technique is that it seeks to liquidate antagonisms but not the antagonist. The goal is to convert one’s opponents not to kill them.

This idea of effective non-violent protest gripped the world and lead to the spread of this form of conflict resolution and the utter disapproval of violence and war in any form.

It inspired the Civil Rights movement of Martin Luther King in the United States, The Women’s Liberation movement, the Civil Rights movement in Northern Ireland in the late 1960s and many, many more. People now saw that through peaceful means change could come and conflict could end. This was now the ethical, moral and right way to resolve conflict, not war.

Morality of Slavery

Slavery was part of everyday life during the Enlightenment period, the 17th – 18th centuries

Only in the last two centuries has it become illegal and widely accepted as immoral or unethical. The efforts of people like William Wilberforce was key to this

Wilberforce was a deeply religious English member of parliament and social reformer who was very influential in the abolition of the slave trade and eventually slavery itself in the British empire. In 1780, Wilberforce became member of parliament for Hull, later representing Yorkshire. His dissolute lifestyle changed completely when he became an evangelical Christian, and in 1790 joined a leading group known as the Clapham Sect. His Christian faith prompted him to become interested in social reform, particularly the improvement of factory conditions in Britain.

The abolitionist Thomas Clarkson had an enormous influence on Wilberforce. He and others were campaigning for an end to the trade in which British ships were carrying black slaves from Africa, in terrible conditions, to the West Indies as goods to be bought and sold. Wilberforce was persuaded to lobby for the abolition of the slave trade and for 18 years he regularly introduced anti-slavery motions in parliament.

The campaign was supported by many members of the Clapham Sect and other abolitionists who raised public awareness of their cause with pamphlets, books, rallies and petitions. In 1807, the slave trade was finally abolished, but this did not free those who were already slaves. It was not until 1833 that an act was passed giving freedom to all slaves in the British empire.

Wilberforce retired from politics in 1825 and died on 29 July 1833, shortly after (3 days) the act to free slaves in the British empire passed through the House of Commons. He was buried in Westminster Abbey.

Slavery was still alive and well in the Americas, despite its abolition in the British Empire. The American Civil War, 1861-1865, was a turning point in this being the case. It could be described as a war fought to end slavery or, more accurately, to prevent it from spreading into more parts of the United States.

The anti-slavery North and pro-slavery South fought over this principle, with the North eventually emerging victorious. Abraham Lincoln, who was president during this period,

helped to end slavery with his “Emancipation proclamation” and freeing all those who had been enslaved by it.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was another key moment in the development of the global ethics around slavery Under the supervision of Eleanor Roosevelt, who had been the “First Lady” in the United States from 1933-1945, the United Nations put together a list of 30 human rights. They declared that these rights were universal, therefore they applied to all humans in all circumstances.

Regarding slavery, the right to live a life of dignity and quality, coupled with the explicit outlawing of slavery makes it an impossibility in the eyes and ethics of the United Nations. As a result, most of the countries of the world have banned any form of slavery, with severe criminal penalties for it

Unfortunately, despite the UDHR, slavery continues today, with many commentators suggesting that is far worse than it has ever been. It is difficult to get exact figures as contemporary slavery occurs in a covert manner, but it is estimated that up to 45 million people are enslaved in some shape of formiv

These forms of slavery include child labour, other forms of forced labour, child soldiers, prostitution, and people working in pornography These individuals have been forced through imprisonment, violence, psychological abuse and/or economic necessity to work for little or no pay, with no way of getting out

The sad reality is that slavery is profitable to many and others profit from the cheaper goods that this form of labour creates. We need become more conscientious and ethical consumers to end this form of cruelty, but it is not going to be cheap.

Past exam question 2009

Capital Punishment… Child Labour… Slavery… War

Choose two of the issues listed above and outline the way in which there has been a change over the course of time in the understanding of what is right and wrong in each issue. (40 marks)

Past exam question 2014

Outline how an idea associated with the Enlightenment has influenced people’s understanding of what is right and wrong about one of the issues below: (40 marks)

Capital punishment Child labour Slavery War

Balance, Rights & the Law Chapter

Balancing Personal & Community Values

A personal value is something that an individual alone may value but that a society in which they live may not value on the same level. For example, many religious people allow their faith to inform them what to value above all other considerations. The Kosher food laws within Judaism inform a Jew about what to eat and how an animal should be killed for it to be good/moral to eat.

A communal/community value can be something that most people in a society value, like education. Most people believe that being educated to a high standard is beneficial to you. It can help you find fulfilment and encourage you to except your fellow human beings with tolerance and respect. Therefore, it is a valuable thing to have.

Personal and communal values generally interact quite well as most personal values are valued by the wider community i.e. education as a personal value and a communal value.

Freedom of speech is valued by both the individual and the community. They, as previously said, act harmoniously. However, there are many circumstances when personal values are limited in favour of the needs and values of the community.

When An Bord Pleanála gave permission for an incinerator to be put on waste land in Dublin Bay, they did so knowing that those living close by would have a higher chance of developing cancer due to the particles released by the burning of refuse.

However, the bigger concern was that of Dublin’s landfill sites rapidly be filled to capacity. As this was seen a more pressing concern to a much larger number of people. Planning permission was given as it was in the common interest to do so. The burning of refuse reduces its mass by 90%. This much reduced waste is placed in landfill sites which can be used for much longer period due to the reduction in the mass of the waste. In this case, the individual concerns were superceded by the community concerns.

Personal values or those valued by a minority of people more often pushed aside when they come into conflict with communal or more widely held values.

A stark example of this can be seen in the case of Mrs K from 2006. You can look it up online in an article from the Irish Independent. She had just given birth to a baby boy and subsequently lost 80% of her blood in the birth due to complications. The doctors immediately prepared to give her a blood transfusion, but she refused on religious grounds.

She was a Jehovah Witness and believed that it was a sin to willingly receive a blood transfusion and therefore morally wrong. This is clearly a personally held value.

She fell unconscious after the refusal and the hospital decided that they wished to save her life and needed to find a legal way to give her to have blood transfusion against her expressed wishes. They immediately went to a judge who ruled in favour of the value of life over death

and in favour of the hospital’s wishes and values. Saying that if a doctor can save a life they can go against the patient’s wishes, to do so.

This is a communal value held in Ireland, that if we can save a life, we must try to. Here again, we see personal values being limited or restricted by what the community values. And again, as previously said, this is what usually occurs when personal and communal values come into conflict.

Balancing of personal and communal values in two Charters

Balance means is to hold something in place without it falling or slipping. Generally, in a level manner. When discussing the balancing of personal and communal values you are asking the question of how a value can be held against another value without letting either one slip or be undervalued. How can the two co-exist?

A charter is a list of rites that set out what should happen in several instances. The 10 Commandments and the Pansil are religious charters for the Jewish and Buddhist faith respectively. They highlight the right and wrong actions that help to enable a Jew or a Buddhist to live a fulfilled life along their religious path.

However, the Charters we will be discussing are the ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)” and the ‘Charter for Fundamental Rights of the European Union’.

In the UDHR many rights are outlined but the one that reveals the clearest balancing of personal and communal values is article 29. Again, you can view it in its entirety online. It outlines why there are limits to freedom of the exercising of rights. That to maintain people’s personal values and rights sometimes means limiting the extent to which you can practice a particular right.

One has the right to practice one’s own faith but if the practicing of that faith involves the sacrifice of infants in a burning pit to gain favour from their god, then that practice is likely to be limited as it denies the right to life of the infant.

The plain fact is that we cannot have a cooperative and cohesive society unless people’s individual rights are limited.

SAMPLE

In the case of “Mrs K” we can clearly see this in action. Her right to practice her faith meant her death and her son growing up motherless. Therefore, to protect the communal right to preserve life and the belief that having a mother is a good way to grow up meant that her right to practice her faith was limited.

In the Charter for the Fundamental Rights of the European Union, article 17 is the clearest example of the balancing of personal and communal rights. It discusses the Right to Property but states that it must be only exercised in the public interest and other people’s rights cannot be restricted by how one uses their property.

Irish citizens may have the right to get a license for and subsequently own a gun. The gun is their property. Now in using their property they must not deny another citizen of their rights and must comply with Irish law.

They cannot decide they want pigeon for dinner and head towards Eyre Square (Galway) or St Stephens Green (Dublin) and start shooting pigeons. This would endanger other citizens right to life who are using the amenity. The piece of property would be removed from this citizen and they would be charged under the Offences against the State Act of 1940 for endangering the lives of others. This is another way of saying that they are denying others of their right to live free from danger and away from threats on their lives.

The offences against the State Act says that it is impossible to maintain the individual/personal rights of a citizen unless they maintain social order for every citizen Therefore, as with article 29 of the UDHR, there are limits placed on freedom but in this case the limits on how you use your property.

Past exam question 2006

A communal value is a characteristic considered to be good, important and worthwhile for a community. Outline two communal values from a charter you have studied. Explain why each of the values you have outlined is good, important and worthwhile for a community. (80 marks)

Past exam question 2012

Compare the communal values found in two charters that you have studied. (20 marks)

Past exam question 2017

Profile how a balance between personal and community values is expressed in two different charters that you have studied. (40 marks)

Past exam question 2019

Individual rights need to be balanced with the common good. Assess the evidence for this statement making reference to one example from either Irish civil law or an international charter. (40 marks)