This document discusses various philosophical perspectives on the relationship between sentiments/emotions and moral decision-making. It addresses views from David Hume, Immanuel Kant, and Ronald de Sousa that see emotions/reason as the basis of morality. The document also examines how Star Trek characters exemplify different perspectives and provides a seven-step guide to moral reasoning.

1. SENTIMENTS AND MORAL
DECISION-MAKING

2. Scottish Philosopher David Hume
Morality is based not
on reason but on
emotions.

3. Immanuel Kant
Man’s moral agency can only
be perfected if decisions are
based solely on rationality.

4. Canadian Philosopher Ronald de Sousa
In his book The Rationality
of Emotion (1987), feelings
and reason actually
complement each other, not
antagonize.

5. FEELINGS AND REASONS IN STAR
TREK

6. To Canadian-American
Philosopher Patricia
Churchland (1996), the
the relationship between
feelings and reason can
best be gleaned from the
three central characters in
the science fiction
television show Star
Figure 1. Spock, Kirk, and McCoy in Star Trek

7. REASON AND IMPARTIALITY

8. Reason and Impartiality, as guided by sound
judgement, can be reliable tools in bypassing the
subjectivity of feelings (which sometimes distract
from making the right decisions).

9. Moral impetus of impartiality

10. Impartiality states that no one is above or beneath any
standard when making moral valuations.
Moral judgements should be backed by reason. So
in hiring someone for a key position in a company,
one should look past the racial angle and assess the
person on good reasons ( his/her qualifications,
work history, feedback from previous companies et
al.)

11. REASON AND IMPARTIALITY IN THE FIRST
AMENDMENT DEFENSE ACT

12. The First Amendment Defense Act would prevent the
federal government from discriminating against
individuals and institutions based on their definition
of marriage or beliefs about premarital sex.
It’s scope will cover acts of discrimination committed
against the third sex that are premised on the idea that:
1.Marriage is or should be recognized as the union of
one man and woman, or
2.Sexual relations are properly reserved to such a
marriage

13. THE SEVEN-STEP GUIDE TO MORAL
REASONING

14. 1. State the problem.
2. Check the facts
3. Identify relevant factors.
4. Develop a list of options.
5. Test the options.
a. Harm Test
b. Publicly Test
c. Defensibility Test
d. Reversibility Test
e. Colleague Test
f. Organization Test
g. Virtue Test
6. Come up with a choice or decision based on the above mentioned steps.
7. Review Steps 1-6.
THE SEVEN-STEP GUIDE TO MORAL REASONING

15. Moral courage

16. In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle notes that as a
condition to be held morally responsible, we must
have been acting voluntarily.
In particular, two elements must be true: (1) a person
must be in control of their actions and (2) also must
be aware of what they're doing.

17. WHAT SEPERATES VICE FROM
VIRTUE?

18. Virtue is a trait of character , manifested
in habitual action, that is good for a person
have.
For Aristotle, vices are just voluntarily
adopted by man as virtues.
Vices, by contrast, are negative character
traits that we develop in response to
emotions and urges.

19. Courage defined

20. In examining specific virtues, such as courage,
Aristotle defined them as a “mean” between two
extremes. Courage, for example, lies between the
vices of cowardliness and rashness.

21. Physical and moral courage

22. Physical courage is the enactment of
virtue through actual activity, such as a
officer in pursuit of a criminal. At times,
an act can be driven by abstractions, like
and honor. Though physical courage can
principle-related, it is not exclusively
driven.

23. Moral courage is never always demonstrated on
a physical level. Instead, engaging in such acts
serves mainly to further typify the virtues one
lives by.
Moral courage has no adoring public to play to,
for to muster it means to take the road less
travelled.

24. Moral courage: “determinants” and factors

25. In his theoretical model of moral courage, Meyer
(2004) proposed four main factors that promote or
inhibit moral courageous behavior: (a) social and
political context, (b) situational factors, (c)
personal factors, and (d) perception of the
situation.

26. Supposed determinants

27. Courage to be moral requires:
• Obligations to honor
(What is the right thing to do?)
• Danger management
(What do I need to handle my fear?)
• Expression and action
(What action do I need to take to
maintain my integrity?)
The Three Elements of Moral Courage

28. When we're in a group, it's easier to assume that someone else
will step up and do something, so we don't do anything
ourselves. This leads to the bystander effect. The problem is,
when everyone assumes that someone else will act, no one
actually does.
Mood also plays an important role on whether or not a person
chooses to demonstrate helping behavior. It was subsequently
revealed that neither of the three mood sates (positive,
negative, neutral) affect one’s capacity for moral courage in
any way, as it varies depending on the situation.

29. Fostering factors

30. The first role is Social Norms, predominantly the
most salient prosocial one’s in encouraging morally
courageous acts.
The second role is that of Anger. Morally
courageous actsare often caused by moral outrage,
or the kind of anger provoked by violation of a
certain moral or ethical standard.

31. Moral imperative of the will

32. Will is the fortitude it takes for one to act or
decide according to a personal set of
principles.

33. Kant’s postulate

34. Kant states that moral function of good will should
not be seen as a primary motivator for human
actions, be it pleasure or happiness. He further
expands on will as being classified on to two:
moral and flawed.
Flawed will is predominantly influence by the
the impulses of human nature, making it’s freedom
non-absolute’ especially if compared to moral will,
which is rooted primarily in duty and reason.

35. Will according to schoipenhauer

36. Unlike Kant, Schopenhauer has a rather pessimistic
view of will. Because man is subservient to it, he is
coerced into pursuing numerous goals that, as he will
later on find out, provide only fleeting, almost
illusory, contentment. In the end, the will is never
fully satisfied., so in order to compensate, one must
free himself up from earthly constraints (i.e. desire)
and put obligation to one’s virtue s first over
anything else.

37. Aquinas and royce

38. Aquinas argues that choice is a function of
the will in light of a judgment by the
other words, the will moves the agent
particular action, an action that has been
determined by the intellect.
For Royce, the essential attitude of will
must adopt toward the world is “loyalty to
ideal of an ultimate truth.”