Choice 1:
Discuss a moral dilemma you have either found yourself involved in or one your closely observed another involved in where you or that other person have had to make a decision based solely on your moral beliefs. First, read Chapter 9, p. 375, "Your Moral Compass" to see how a person develops and enforces his or her own moral beliefs. Next, outline your dilemma and how your moral beliefs directed your actions. Finally, write a 2-3 page paper on this situation.
Your Moral Compass
The purpose of the informal self-evaluation in Thinking Activity 9.2 is to illuminate your currentmoral code and initiate the process of critical reflection. Which of your moral values are clearly articulated and well grounded? Which are ill defined and tenuously rooted? Do your values form a coherent whole, consistent with one another, or do you detect fragmentation and inconsistency? Obviously, constructing a well-reasoned and clearly defined moral code is a challenging journey. But if we make a committed effort to think critically about the central moral questions, we can make significant progress toward this goal.
Your responses to the questions in Thinking Activity 9.2 reveal your current values. Where did these values come from? Parents, teachers, religious leaders, and other authority figures have sought to inculcate values in your thinking, but friends, acquaintances, and colleagues do as well. And in many cases they have undoubtedly been successful. Although much of your values education was likely the result of thoughtful teaching and serious discussions, in many other instances people may have bullied, bribed, threatened, and manipulated you into accepting their way of thinking. It's no wonder that our value systems typically evolve into a confusing patchwork of conflicting beliefs.
In examining your values, you probably also discovered that, although you had a great deal of confidence in some of them ("I feel very strongly that animals should never be experimented on in ways that cause them pain because they are sentient creatures just like ourselves"), you felt less secure about other values ("I feel it's usually wrong to manipulate people, although I often try to influence their attitudes and behavior-I'm not sure of the difference").
These differences in confidence are likely related to how carefully you have examined and analyzed your values. For example, you may have been brought up in a family or religion with firmly fixed values that you have adopted but never really scrutinized or evaluated, wearing these values like a borrowed overcoat. When questioned, you might be at a loss to explain exactly why you believe what you do, other than to say, "This is what I was taught." In contrast, you may have other values that you consciously developed, the product of thoughtful reflection and the crucible of experience. For example, doing volunteer work with a disadvantaged group of people may have led to the conviction that "I believe we have a profound obligation to contribute to the welfare of people less fortunate than ourselves."
In short, most people's values are not systems at all: they are typically a collection of general principles ("Do unto others ..."), practical conclusions ("Stealing is wrong because you might get caught"), and emotional pronouncements ("Euthanasia is wrong because it seems heartless"). This hodgepodge of values may reflect the serendipitous way they were acquired over the course ofyour life, and the current moral compass that you use to guide your decisions in moral situations likely comprise these values, even though you may not be consciously aware of it. Your challenge is to create a more refined and accurate compass, an enlightened system of values that you can use to confidently guide your moral decisions.
One research study that analyzed the moral compasses that young people use to guide their decision making in moral situations asked interviewees, "If you were unsure of what was right or wrong in a particular situation, how would you decide what to do?" (Think about how you would respond to this question.) According to the researcher, here's how the students responded:
• I would do what is best for everyone involved: 23 percent.
• I would follow the advice of an authority, such as a parent or teacher: 20 percent.
• I would do whatever made me happy: 18 percent.
• I would do what God or the Scriptures say is right: 16 percent.
• I would do whatever would improve my own situation: 10 percent.
• I do not know what I would do: 9 percent.
• I would follow my conscience: 3 percent.
Each of these guiding principles represents a different moral theory that describes the way people reason and make decisions about moral issues. However, moral values not only describe the way people behave; they also suggest that this is the way people ought to behave. For example, if I say, "Abusing children is morally wrong," I am not simply describing what I believe; I am also suggesting that abusing children is morally wrong for everyone. Let's briefly examine the moraltheories represented by each of the responses just listed.
I WOULD FOLLOW MY CONSCIENCE
We could describe this as a psychological theory of morality because it holds that we should determine right and wrong based on our psychological moral sense. Our conscience is that part of our mind formed by internalizing the moral values we were raised with, generally from our parents but from other authority figures and peers as well. If that moral upbringing has been intelligent, empathic, and fair-minded, then our conscience can serve as a fairly sound moralcompass to determine right and wrong. The problem with following our conscience occurs when the moral values we have internalized are not intelligent, empathic, or fair-minded. For example, if we were raised in an environment that encouraged racist beliefs or condoned child abuse, then our conscience might tell us that these are morally acceptable behaviors.
I DO NOT KNOW WHAT I WOULD DO
This statement expresses a morally agnostic theory of morality that holds there is no way to determine clearly what is right or wrong in moral situations. This view is a form of skepticism because it suggests that there is no universal common standard to determine how we ought to behave toward each other. Although we are often confused about the right course of action in complex moral situations, the moral agnostic theory is problematic because it does not permit us to evaluate the conduct of others. For example, if someone robs you and beats you up, you have no basis on which to say, "That was a morally wrong thing for that person to do." Instead, you have to tolerate such conduct because there is no ultimate right or wrong.
I WOULD DO WHATEVER WOULD IMPROVE MY OWN SITUATION
We could describe this viewpoint as a ethical egoism theory of morality because the right action is based on what works well for advancing the speaker's interests, while the wrong action is determined by what works against the speaker's interests. For example, if you are trying to decide whether you should volunteer at a local drug treatment center, you might conclude that this is the right thing to do because it will help you in your training as a psychologist and will look good onyour résumé. The problem with this sort of moral reasoning is that you could also use it to justify cheating on an upcoming exam (if you were assured of not getting caught!) or hurting someone's reputation so that you could get ahead. At its heart, the ethical egoist theory of morality can be used to justify any actions that serve the individual interests of anyone.