Ethics, or moral philosophy, is the branch of philosophy that asks the question ;What is right
and wrong; or; What is good and bad?; It is a vast and complex field that encompasses a
wide range of theories and approaches, including deontological ethics, utilitarianism, and
virtue ethics, among others.
Three ways to look at what is right and wrong are deontology, utilitarianism and virtue
ethics. Deontologists believe something that is wrong is always wrong no matter what the
context. Utilitarianism would posit the idea that the needs of many trump the needs of the
individual whereas virtue ethics coined by Aristotle in the Nicomachean Ethics suggest that
morals are applied with an understanding of context in order to live “the good life”.
In relation to Kohlberg (1971) theory of moral development where it is suggested there are
3 levels comprised of 6 stages. These 3 levels are preconventional (early childhood) where
moral decisions are made with the primary self-focus to satisfy their own needs and to avoid
punishment. This is a very fixed stage of moral development that shows no flexibility and
could be closely associated with deontology. Conventional (early teens) is other focused
morality in which there is an understanding of what is expected and the pursuit of achieving
those expectations is moral. There is also recognition that utilitarian rules make life better
for society but not necessarily to the individual self. Finally, the postconventional stage
(adulthood) where it is expected individuals can distinguish that different groups have
different morals and they are circumstantial and transcend mutual benefit. Kohlberg (1971)
suggests that as we get older we experience new things which broadens our capacity for
critical thinking and develops a higher level of self-awareness that assists us in making
decisions that we see as moral.
It is unclear if we know the decision we are making is moral in a cognitive sense of if we feel
the decision we are making is moral in an emotional or felt sense. Philosopher Eugene
Gendlin formalized the term “felt sense”. The felt sense is often unclear, people cannot
specifically verbalize what they are feeling, but often describe it as a vague awareness of
things ranging from old psychological traumas to burgeoning ideas. While a felt sense is
partially emotional, Gendlin characterized the concept as a combination of emotion,
awareness, intuitiveness, and embodiment. Often, decisions we make to pursue what we
“feel” is the moral thing to do is based on our felt sense (Katonnah, 1999).
However, in order to evaluate this we should look at the schematic make up of an individual
to see how their schemas influence their decisions. A schema is broad, pervasive themes
regarding oneself and one’s relationship with others, developed during childhood and
elaborated throughout one’s lifetime, and dysfunctional to a significant degree (Bricker &
Young, 1993). One could have a punitive schema in which they believe they or others should
be harshly punished, or an entitlement/grandiosity schema in which an individual displays
narcissistic traits and feels they are above the rules that are designed for others to follow.
How can individuals with these schemas make moral decisions? Or are the decisions they
are making morally congruent with their own sense of self and therefore morally right to
them?
Another point to be considered in what is right or wrong is to evaluate our needs. Biological
theory of self interest suggests that as humans we are inherently selfish and we do what we
must to survive. Drawing on Maslow (1987) hierarchy of needs it is suggested that our most
basic and therefore most important needs are those of survival. These physiological needs:
food, water and sleep may trump even the most moral mans capacity to do the right thing.
Does the starving man choose to not steal food in order to feed himself and instead choose
to die? Or does the overwhelming physiological distress caused by starvation over ride his
morality and compel him to steal food to eat? If this individual is at a preconventional stage
of moral development and has a grandiose/entitlement schema then it could be suggested
that it feels right to him to steal the bread to feed himself. Rest argues we develop moral
schemas based on life experience as we develop allowing for more complex moral decision
making (Rest & Narvaez, 1991). Maslow & Lewis (1987) have placed self-actualization at the
top of their hierarchy, a stage where one has achieved their full potential, including creative
activities. But this can only be achieved in a place of complete comfort, security and through
these one may develop self-awareness. Kidder (1995) suggests there are 4 components to
moral decision making that are; Moral Sensitivity, Moral Judgement, Moral Focus and Moral
Character. Interestingly, in order for each of these stages to be reached one must be in a
place of relative comfort and not existing on lowest level of Maslow & Lewis (1987)
hierarchy.
In conclusion, there are many different ways to understand what right and wrong, and
different approaches is may be more or less applicable depending on the situation. Reason,
critical thinking, and an understanding of moral rules can be helpful in determining the right
course of action. Consequentialism can be useful in situations where the consequences of
an action are the primary concern. Virtue ethics can be helpful in guiding us to act in
accordance with our virtues and character. However in a study conducted by Lapsley and
Hill (2008) they found that traits most conducive to making moral decisions were courage,
integrity, optimism, humility and compassion. For me though, a number of factors
contribute to making a moral decision, these are; family, childhood experiences, religion,
education, the law, society moral development, psychological insight and level of comfort.
Comments