2. Moral and Ethical Reasoning

Moral reasoning is the process of deciding whether an action, decision, policy, or institution is morally right or wrong.

1. A moral standard -

2. Relevant facts

3. A moral judgment

A moral standard is a principle about how people should behave.

Example: People should not be harmed unnecessarily.

Moral judgments must be based on correct and relevant information.

Incorrect or incomplete facts can produce the wrong conclusion.

A moral judgment is the final conclusion that an action or situation is morally right, wrong, fair, or unfair.

1. Standard: Companies should not unnecessarily harm employees.

   
   

2. Fact: A company hides serious workplace risks.

   
   

3. Judgment: The company’s behaviour is morally wrong.

Kohlberg’s theory explains how people’s moral reasoning can develop from self-interest to broader moral principles.

The theory focuses mainly on why a person makes a decision.

1. Pre-conventional level

2. Conventional level

3. Post-conventional level

A person decides based mainly on personal rewards and punishments.

• Stage One (1): punishment and obedience orientation

• Stage Two (2): instrumental and relative orientation

Main question: “What will happen to me?”

A person follows rules mainly to avoid punishment.

Example: “I will not steal because I might be fired.”

A person acts according to what benefits them or what they receive in return.

Example: “I will help you because you might help me later.”

A person follows social expectations, rules, and laws.

• Stage One (3): interpersonal concordance orientation

• Stage Two (4): law and order orientation / Maintaining the Social Order

Main question: “What do other people and society expect?”

A person acts in a certain way because they want others to think they are good.

Example: An employee works extra hours to gain their manager’s approval.

person follows laws and rules because they believe these rules maintain order in society.

Example: An accountant refuses to manipulate financial records because it is illegal.

A person judges actions using principles such as justice, equality, dignity, and human rights.

Main question: “What is morally right in principle?”

A person believes that laws should protect people’s rights and welfare. Unfair laws may need to be changed.

A person follows universal principles such as justice, equality, dignity, and human rights, even when these conflict with laws.

1. The reasoning must be logical.

2. The facts must be accurate, relevant, and complete.

3. The moral standards must be consistent.

The moral conclusion must follow logically from the moral standard and the available facts.

Similar situations should be judged using the same moral standards.

You should not change your moral rule simply because another result benefits you.

Yes. Two important moral standards may support different actions.

Example:

• Employees should obey their employer.

• People should not endanger others.

  
  

An employee may need to reject an unsafe order.

1. Recognize the ethical issue.

2. Judge the ethical action.

3. Decide to act ethically.

4. Carry out the ethical decision.

   
   

A person gathers the facts and asks:

• Could someone be harmed?

• Could someone’s rights be violated?

• Is a moral standard involved?

A person:

• identifies possible actions;

• considers the affected stakeholders;

• applies moral standards;

• chooses the most ethical option.

Moral imagination is the ability to think of different ethical solutions instead of seeing only one or two options.

Deciding to act ethically requires turning moral knowledge into personal will. Knowing what is right is an intellectual judgment of a situation.

Acting ethically means choosing to do that right thing even when it costs you time, money, or safety.

The person turns the ethical judgment into real action and prepares for possible objections or consequences.

Moral disengagement happens when people mentally separate themselves from the harmful or unethical meaning of their actions.

It allows them to behave badly without feeling fully responsible.

1. Moral justification

2. Euphemistic language

3. Comparing the action with something worse

4. Minimizing the consequences

5. Blaming the victim

6. Dehumanization

Euphemistic language uses softer words to make harmful actions sound less serious.

Example: Calling employee dismissals “rightsizing.”

Advantageous comparison means making your behaviour appear acceptable by comparing it with something worse.

Example: “Our company polluted the river, but other companies polluted much more.”

• Ignoring long-term consequences

• Forgetting some stakeholders

• Stereotyping other people

• Believing we are more honest or objective than we really are

• Ignoring conflicts of interest

Ethical behaviour requires more than knowing moral rules.