How do you make moral decisions?

In my last blog, we explored if ethics, morals and justice are completely learned behavior or if there is an innate sense. We learned that humans have a moral brain with circuits that begin functioning at an early age. This is largely because living within a social structure is part of survival of the species. So where do we go from here? The author of my source article teased by briefly mentioning that while humans have this innate sense of fairness, justice and helping others, or at least avoiding harm, humans do not approach moral thinking the same. So, I want to know these different ways!

There are as many theories as there are theorists; however, I think I found some information that sums things up enough for our discussion. And PLEASE do consider leaving a comment with your own thoughts. This is a big topic and a short blog. I will include my own thoughts as upsides and downsides.

1. Utilitarianism/Consequentialism: This is based on potential consequences. The approach considers which choices lead to the most happiness or the least suffering. Ultimately, it strives for the most good for the most people.

   
   

   Upside: Seems like thinking ahead to consequences is generally a good thing, as long as your prefrontal cortex is fully formed.

   
   

   Downside: I can see humans becoming fixated on their own happiness and suffering and forget about the "other." I suppose that could happen regardless of the method. More importantly, though, there would be those whose needs are never part of the equation because they are not part of "most people," the majority. So this can lead to still a heck of a lot of suffering!

   
   

2. Deontology: There's a new word! In the layperson's terminology, duty. Society needs rules and morality is based on following those rules. Immanuel Kant uses the term "categorical imperative" as a guide to determining the rules. It is similar to the golden rule. Only do what you would be fine with other people doing. So if you think it would be wrong for them to do, it's wrong for you, too.

   
   

   Upside: It has a foundation that many people would agree to and has potential for fairness and justice.

   
   

   Downside: Rules tend to be based on "don't do this..." rather than "do this." In a classroom setting, teachers find that phrasing rules as a direction for what TO DO rather than what NOT to do gets better results. Some humans spend a lot of mental energy on how to get around the "don't" rules as we can all attest.

   
   

3. Relativism: The approach considers that differences between cultures and societies should be considered as valid since morality is heavily influenced by how one is raised.

   
   

   Upside: We ought to give points for considering cultural differences and demonstrating dignity for other cultures rather than elevating one's own culture above all others. There is definitely merit in that idea, but I'm not sure it makes a good foundation for moral reasoning as a whole.

   
   

   Downside: I believe various cultures and societies might or already do engage in behaviors that would be considered immoral using other theories and chalk it up to cultural differences. I can see vulnerable people suffering a lot with this type of reasoning.

   
   

4. Divine Command: God determines what is right and wrong and without God we would be screwed. Guidance comes from the Bible or a religious leader. This theory is one of the most controversial. (I am married to an ordained minister and my faith is darn healthy. I tell you this so you know from what perspective I'm viewing this.)

   
   

   Upside: There are some really great scripture passages that can lead to a lot of good.

   
   

   Downside: This approach is fraught with pitfalls. Where do we begin?? Ugh! In my opinion, this approach seems to bypass any innate sense, aka, moral conscience. The idea of "needing" a religious leader to tell you what is moral and immoral is ripe for abuse of all kinds. There are a lot of different ways higher powers are expressed. There are definite similarities but there are different holy books in different languages written in a very different time period and probably translated multiple times. This approach is Judeo-Christian centered. Perhaps, too, there are so many trees in the forest people easily end up hyper focusing on a couple trees and miss the bigger view.

   
   

5. Virtue Ethics: This article expresses this as a set of qualities that lead to morality and are cross-cultural. It involves continual self improvement. They include wisdom, prudence, loyalty, honesty, temperance, bravery, magnanimity, and justice.

   
   

   Upside: These are good qualities to have. Many can lead to good decision-making. One would expect good moral reasoning from someone with good character.

   
   

   Downside: The focus here is on the person and not behavior. A pitfall I see is an overreliance on the idea of virtue or character and the assumption that whatever this person does can be relied on as being moral. An even bigger pitfall is the likelihood of a person masking abusive behavior behind a cloak of virtue knowing that it can stay hidden easier when others perceive a perpetrator as being of sound character.

   
   

6. Egoism: Obviously, moral reasoning is based on self-interest. Proponents say that we are likely to mess up when we try to help others since it's so hard to know what they want. We are all just better off looking out for ourselves.

   
   

   Upside: Responsibility for self would be on the higher end.

   
   

   Downside: I don't know but this sounds like a cop-out. Doing nothing has its own set of consequences so this falls short of the moral reasoning definition in my mind.

   
   

7. Natural Rights: This falls in with the idea of human rights. All humans have certain rights that come with existence, not agreed upon by culture or society. These rights lead to happiness and are vital to a civil society. The big three are right to life, right to own property and liberty.

   
   

   Upside: It spans across all societies, cultures and identity markers. It is expansive enough yet briefly stated. For those in the United States, we recognize this idea from the Preamble to the Constitution. I believe it tries to go beyond egoism.

   
   

   Downside: This is difficult to consider because these phrases are socially ingrained in me so I'm having a hard time distancing myself enough to be more objective. My over-arching thought right now is that the United States is failing at these ideals currently. Perhaps the downside then is that it becomes easy to believe "Hey we have a great foundation! Look how great we are!" which can lead to overconfidence and next thing you know, you're tripping up and falling on your face.

   
   

   Humans are unique, complex beings and living together in groups makes for multiplication of the complexities. I think we can agree we are also flawed, imperfect as are any theories we come up with. Essentially, we will NEVER get a complex process such as moral reasoning totally right.

   However, the more we understand moral decision making, the more mindful and intentional we may be in our own reasoning. This has the potential for better choices all around!

   
   

   So, my friends, where do we go from here?

   
   

   I'd love to read any comments you can make!

Source: https://www.theclassroom.com/three-categories-ethical-theories-8373890.html