Assignment 2: Steps to Moral Reasoning and Ethical Conclusions

 

For your assignment, use the information on critical thinking, arguments, and the steps of moral reasoning from the chapter section  "Critical Thinking and Moral Reasoning" to construct an argument that has one of the following as the ethical conclusions:

1. The Food Stamp program is a moral and just form of redistribution of taxed income, or
2. The Food Stamp program is an immoral and unjust form of redistribution of taxed income. 

The goal of this assignment is for you to use the steps of moral reasoning to reduce your opinion (on the Food Stamp program) to a statement (either [1] or [2] above).  This statement should be supported by a set of premises or morally reasoned sentences developed as you followed the Steps to Moral Reasoning. Your moral reasoning steps should explain or show how the conclusion is ethically correct.

Be sure to include a discussion of your thoughts on the actual steps of moral reasoning (from the text) that you use. Explain how they support your opinion on either conclusion 1 or 2.

This is an important exercise because moral reasoning should be the foundation upon which you build your answers to future assignments.

Please be sure to read the grading criteria to make sure your response contains all the required information to earn the highest grade. Please use the spelling/grammar checker before posting your response or replies.

 

STEPS TO MORAL REASONING

Given the above, the following is a brief outline of the necessary steps to sound moral reasoning. Throughout all of these steps, we need to ensure that we avoid the above fallacies. In addition to these steps, refer also to the article “Moral Reasoning” at the end of the chapter.

STEP ONE: KNOW THE FACTS

We need to sift through as much detail and evidence as we can regarding an issue. We place a high premium upon being well-informed. The more informed we are about an issue, the better position we are in to more properly evaluate it. Furthermore, when we examine evidence, we need to consider the sources of our information. Are the sources biased? Media sources tend to be naturally biased in view of competition for ratings and for news that “sells.” What about our own biases? Am I only reading sources that support my own feelings? Are these the “facts” because I want them to be the facts? Because they serve my own interests? Am I thinking as impartially as I can? Am I selecting only the facts that support my position?

 

STEP TWO: VIEW THESE FACTS FROM VARIOUS PERSPECTIVES

Keep in mind that the facts are often presented to us within various frames of reference. We need to make an earnest effort to understand as well as we can these other frames of reference. This is especially critical in our journey through various cultures. We are not entitled to evaluate the beliefs and practices of other cultures unless we make an effort to understand those beliefs and practices. All too often, particularly with other cultures, we end up evaluating their beliefs and practices from our own frames of reference. We often make the spurious assumption that our values and principles, that is, our own frames of reference, are universal and absolute. In doing so, we impose our own values and principles upon these other cultures. We challenge this assumption from the start.

 

STEP THREE: IDENTIFY THE MORAL ISSUES

What are the key moral issues at stake? We need to be sure that we are on the right track. We must ensure that we know what the moral issues are. This means distinguishing considerations that are moral from those that are nonmoral. This also means knowing what constitutes moral values and nonmoral values as well as distinguishing between descriptive claims and prescriptive claims. This is discussed further in the “Moral Reasoning” article included at the end of the chapter.

 

STEP FOUR: IDENTIFY FACTORS THAT ARE MORALLY RELEVANT

In applying the above rule, we need to distinguish between those factors and details that are morally relevant—that is, relevant to moral resolution—and those factors that are extraneous. Have I left out morally relevant details? Who are the stakeholders? Who are the decision makers? Who will be affected by the decision? Do they have a role in the decision?

 

STEP FIVE: CLARIFY THE VARIOUS WAYS THE ISSUE CAN BE RESOLVED

What are the various ways to resolve the moral conflict? What ethical theories can be reasonably applied to the issue? Here we can test the legitimacy of these theories. What theories make logical sense? What avenue seems to offer the most reasonable approach?

 

STEP SIX: CHOOSE THE BEST MORAL OPTION

Applying the various moral theories and rules to the issue, which decision or action makes the best sense? Which option is the most reasonable?

In summary, moral reasoning in the area of cross-cultural ethics is exceptionally demanding. This is because we need to view an issue through diverse lenses, from various frames of reference. This requires that we understand our own frames of reference. It also requires that we understand frames of reference that are foreign to us. This is no easy task. We have to somehow listen to different voices and wear different lenses. We need to make the best effort we can to know and understand perspectives that are unfamiliar. Herein lies our challenge in examining ethics across cultures. Only if we face this challenge in the proper frame of mind can we make a good start on this journey.