MODEL OF MORAL DECISION MAKING

Uptil now, we have outlined the definitions of Ethics and the terms commonly used in moral discussions. Ethics can be looked at from another point of view. In fact, the best way of approaching any subject is to consider the problems which it analyses. A simple way of understanding moral problems is to consider the manner in which we take moral decisions. The elements involved in moral decision-making can be represented as in the following format.

Model of moral decision making Moral agent — X

Voluntary action or conduct — X picks Y’s pocket X’s action is morally wrong — judgment

It is wrong to steal — moral standard

Religion, custom, law, social norm and the like — source of standard

With the help of the above model, we can get a simple overview of Ethics. Moral standards lie at the core of Ethics. As we shall see, many theories discuss different moral standards e.g. duty, social welfare and individual self perfection. Ethics also discusses the sources from which men derive their moral standards. Such sources are religion, laws, social customs and values imbibed at home or in school. Ethics also discusses the nature of the moral standards. For example, are moral standards objective or subjective? Are they based on intellectual analysis or simply derive from man’s innate moral sense? Are moral standards absolute and universal or are they relative to social situations at given times and places? Are they amenable to logical analysis or are simply unanalysable intuitions or feelings? We will discuss these issues as we go along.

In our above example, the right course of action or right moral judgment can be easily seen. All will agree to the applicable moral standard. But situations often arise in which people differ on the applicable moral standard. Imagine a situation in which a man whose family is starving becomes desperate and breaks into a grocery store, and steals some items of food. What moral judgment should we pass on his action? We would tend to condone his theft out of a sense of natural sympathy for his suffering family. But those who take a stringent view of morality or adhere to absolute ethical standards will condemn the act of theft. “A theft”, they will say “is a theft irrespective of the thief’s

personal circumstances”. They are rigid moralists who apply strict standards in judging this act of theft. For example the great philosopher Immanuel Kant would apply rigid ethical rules even in this type of cases.

Besides the stringency or leniency involved in their application, moral principles can conflict in some situations. In the example of the individual who steals food to feed his hungry family, two moral standards clash with each other. (1) Theft is wrong. (2) A householder must not let his family go hungry. This type of situation involving conflict between two equally valid moral standards is called an ethical dilemma. We discuss ethical dilemmas in a later chapter.

In addition, philosophers are fond of imagining situations which resemble moral puzzles. Suppose for example that a doctor has only a single dose of a life saving injection, and two patients in need of the injection are brought to him. To whom shall he administer the injection? What principles can regulate his choice of whom to save? The purpose of such puzzles is to show that commonly accepted ethical standards break down or fail to provide guidance to moral agents in some situations. In this way, the universal validity of moral standards may be questioned. Further, the idea may be to show that some decisions have to be taken, in the absence of any guiding principles, randomly or based on a moral agent’s discretion.