Worksheet for

Moral
Deliberation
Minimum
Requirement
of Morality
In the church, many have told me that
they grew up in a very paternalistic
ecclesial environment where they were not
encouraged to think for themselves. In
fact, some didnt even know that they were
supposed to think! As one person put it,
We were told just to pray, pay, and obey.
Bishops and priests were expected to have
all the answers, were sought for answers,
and generally gave answers to every
practical moral question put to them.
Now, people are trying to learn how to live
in the church after the Second Vatican
Council, which encouraged them to take
responsibility for both discovering moral
values and charting the direction of their
lives. - Richard M. Gula, SS, Moral Discernment, New
York: Paulist Press, 1997, 1-2
Worksheet
for Moral
Deliberation
Identifying and setting up the
Ethical Problem
What is the ethical problem?
The issue 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. (Per-
haps the ethical problem can
be stated in one or two sen-
tencesvery much like a thesis
statement that defines the
problem to be tackled.)
What are the relevant
facts?
What immediate facts have
the most bearing on the
ethical decision that must be
made in this case? Include
any potential economic,
social, or political pressures.
Who are the Stakeholders?
It is important to identify the stake-
holders who will be affected by the
ethical decision to be made. It will
also help to identify the correspond-
ing obligations that one has toward
the various stakeholders.
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. No-
thing is ever either black or white; sometimes
one is forced to think in terms of a compro-
mise, even if that compromise doesnt exactly
conform to your personal notion of what is the
right thing to do. It is at this stage that reason
struggles to transcend what we feel.
Evaluating the
Options



What benefits and what harms will each option
produce, and which alternative will lead to the best
overall consequence? (Utilitarianism)
What moral rights do the affected parties have, and
which option best respects those rights? (Kant)
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? (Virtue)
Which option treats everyone the same, except
where there is a morally justifiable reason not to, and
does not show favoritism or discrimination? (J ustice
and Fairness)



Determine
the most
appropriate
action
On the basis of the evaluation
done on the various options, we
must 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.
First, we must see to it that our
arguments, the position we take 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.
Double-checking the
Decision
Double-checking the
Decision
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 disabling. 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.

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.
. . . There is a limit to what can be done by
each person at each time in order to live
truthfully, compassionately, and respectfully
of self and others. To refuse to accept this is
to demand perfect love from imperfect
creatures.
We are still on the way to the full flowering
of love. (Richard M. Gula, SS, Moral Discernment (New York: Paulist
Press, 1997)
Note:
No matter how confused
and varied the definitions
and characterizations of
ethics are, and in the face
of objections to its
possibility, in the end we
must have what James
Rachels calls a minimum
conception of morality
which is a core that every
moral theory should accept,
at least as a starting point
for moral reflection.
(1) Moral judgments must be
backed by good reasons: We
must avoid making judgments on
the basis of feelings alone.
"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." How do
we evaluate arguments then?
First, we should get our facts
straight. Second, moral
theories/principles should be
brought into play. In other words,
these function to justify (not
rationalize) our actions and
decisions.
Minimum Requirement of Morality
(2) Requirement of
Impartiality. (Requirement of
justice?) Each individual's
interests are equally
important, i.e., there are no
"privileged" people.