Introduction

uring the last thirty years R. M. Hare has developed and defended
'a metaethical view about the meaning of moral language which he
calls "universal prescriptivism" (Potter, et.al, 1985). During this time Hare has
also professed allegiance to a normative theory which constit1utes a version of
preference utilitarianism. What has never been made entirely clear, however, is his
conception of the relationship between those two theories. In his earlier writings
Hare maintained that:

Ethical theory provides only a clarification of the conceptual framework

within which moral reasoning takes place; it is, therefore, in the required sense,
neutral as between different moral opinions. On my view, there is absolutely
no

content for a moral prescription that is ruled out by logic or by

the definition of
terms.
considerable light these
Fortunately, Hare's most recent writings shed
on

and in his
issues. In his important paper, "Ethical Theory and Utilitarianism",
to have modified his theory in at least
recent book, Moral Thinking, Hare appears
one very important respect. He n o w
holds that universal prescriptivism is not only

not normatively neutral but in fact entails preference.

107
Ethical Requirements

Introduction
Based on Hare's view, to prescribe acting in accordance with a universal
moral principle from which, in conjunction with statements specifying one's beliefs
concerning the relevant facts, the judgment can be derived. To in turn determine
whether one can prescribe
acting in accordance with a universal principle isto
determine whether one would actually choose to perform that action if one knew
that one would have to play, in a series of possible worlds otherwise identical
to the actual worid, the role of each
person (including oneself) who would be
affected. Moreover, it is not enough that one simply
imagines oneself, with one's
own interests, in the
place of those other persons -rather, onemust imagine oneself
as being in their
place while having, in turn, their interests and desires.

Reason and Impartiality

The ultimate basis for ethics is clear:
Human behavior has
the welfare of others. We are consequences tor
to increase or decrease the
capable acting toward others in such a way as
of
quality of their lives. We are capable of
harming. What is more, we are theoretically helping or
are doing the one and capable of understanding when we
when the other. This is so
put ourselves imaginatively in the because we have the
place of others and capaciiy to
affected if somone were
to act toward
recognize how wouldwe be
us as we are
It is said that
acting toward others.
reason
gives rise to ethical
discourse
engagement and if this is
true, the
and healthy devate and
that we can resort to question must be asked:
Have we lost all reason
insults, that we fail to
and thoughtful engage one another in
way, even as we differ a
constructive
ideologically and
politically?
108
lt is said that ""rcason requires impartialitv" and this
statement has serious
implications tor
truthtuiness and reason
Reason and
impartiality are absolute to any particular group of people,
not
while moraiity is absolute. Whatever is considered
wrong morally within a certain
group of people cannot be debated through
reason. Morality decides the outcome
first and then emplovs reason to justify it. For impartiality, fairness is given more
importance where people are supposed to be treated equally before the law. While
morality may apply generally to a particular group of people, the same cannot
be said of reason and impartiality because the two take a more individualizzed
approach. These are however important because they help in understanding the
moral perception, for example impartiality introduces an aspect of treating people
the same, which is a mora! issue

What is Reason?
Reason is the capacity for consciously making sense of things, establishing and
verifving facts, applying logic, and changing or justifying practices, institutions,
and beliefs based on new or existing information (Kompridis, 2000). It is closely
associated with such characteristically human activities as philosophy, science,
language, mathematics, and art and is normally considered to be a distinguishingg
humans. Reason, or an aspect of it, is sometimes referred to
ability possessed by
as rationality.
and intellect. The
Reasoning is associated with thinking, cognition,
philosophical field of logic studies ways in which humans reason formally

through argument (Hintikka, 2013). Reason

is a declaration made to explain or

justify action, decision, or conviction.

of two kinds: those
The proper role of ethical reasoning is to highlight acts
warrant our praise- and those
which enhance the well-being of others- that
criticism.
well-being of others- and thus warrant
our
that harm or diminish the
human
abilities is crucial because there is in
Developing one's ethical reasoning
toward egotism, prejudice, self-justitication, and self-
nature
strong
a

tendency sociocentric cultural

deception. These tendencies are exacerbated by powerful media. These
which is the mass
iniluences shape our lives not least of
that
n a e n c c s can be actively opposed only through
the systematic cultivation offair-
weltare
and deep concern tor the
mirdedness, honesty, integrity, self-knowledge, and finally.
of otherS. We c a n never eliminate our egocentric tendencies absolutely
as ethical persons.
Dut we can actively fight them as we learn to develop
reasons for
ethics: If you have no goOd
Reasons have everything to do with
it through very well and maybe
an act or a belief, then you can't have thought
to think that there
you shouldn't be it o r believing it at all. It's quite scary
doing causes, or running
are people out there who are voting, protesting, financing
Each a n d every one.
are doing it.
without any clear
idea of why they and behaviors, and we
campaigns for o u r values, beliefs,
reasons

us should be
clear about o u r them to others.
account of
reasoned
should each be able to give a
don'tjust say, "Becauso
1se
believe or act as you do,
lt s o m e o n e asks you why you before you give a reason
way." Give thema reason why. But
I believe (or act) that Only then will your lifa
keep on asking yourself why.
why, ask yourself why-and
become meaningtul to you.
too. It either connects 1us
actions is important socially,
for our
shared
Giving reasons
social lite depends on a

divides us from them. So much of our

to others or When this understandin
of what's true, right, and appropriate.
understanding the reason why w e disagree
breaks down, the only to restore it is by asking
way
with one another.

Predicting Consequences
Moral reasoning involves predicting the consequences
of an action before we
act. There are always consequences when we take the action we think is right, and
when we try to be good persons, and usually these include unintended as well as
intended outcomes.
When the likely beneficial outcomes of acting on an ethical presumption seem
to outweigh the likely adverse outcomes, then predicting consequences confirms
our presumption.

But when we predict that the adverse consequences will outweigh the
beneficial consequences, even when we are obeying an ethical rule or following an
inspiring story, then we should consider whether to make an exception to the rule
or to look to a different
story for guidance.
We must remember, however, that before we act
we can never know for
certain what the will be.
consequences
what will result from
Therefore, we should take care in predicting
acting
on an ethical presumption.
In doing ethics, look at rules (about
we
(about character and duty and rights) and at stories
relationships) to construct a presumption, and then test this
presumption by predicting what we do know (and
don't know) about the
Conseguences of acting on it. likely

Impartiality
Impartiality also called
justice holding that decisions evenhandedness or
fair-mindedness is principle
the basis of bias, should be based a o
on
objective
improper reasonsprejudice,
criteria,
rather than O
(Wikipedia).preferring the benefit to one person over
or

another ro
Someone who is impartial is not directly involved in
and is, therefore, able to give a fair opinion or decision particular situation,
a

about it. We might be

impartial because this promotes our desire to be fair or because it
well-being and selt-respect and earns us social promotes our
approval. Or we might appeal to
the social good, or to the inherent badness of
violating impartiality.
Impartiality makes no discrimination as to nationality, race,
religious beliefs,
class or political opinions.
It endeavors to relieve the
suffering of individuals,
being guided solely by their needs, and to
give priority to the most urgent cases
of distress.

Consequences of the Fundamental Principle of Impartiality

The consequences of the principle of Impartiality are as follows:
1. It establishes one of its key values: non-discrimination, which is one of the
most important elements of all aspects of the protection of the human being:
human rights law, humanitarian law, refugee law.
2. Although the need to "enjoy the confidence of all" is mentioned about the
principle of Neutrality, this also applies to the principle of Impartiality. Only
an impartial action can give the image of an organization that can be trusted
by people to be assisted or protected. Therefore, systems have to be put in
place to ensure that the people benefitting from the action of the Red Cross
and Red Crescent are those whose vulrnerability is the highest.
3. Impartiality in its true sense requires that subjective distinctions be set aside.
To illustrate the difference between the two notions: a National Society
that refuses to provide its services to a specific group of people, because of
their ethníc origin, fails to observe the rule of non-discrimination; whereas a
National Society staff member who, in the exercise of his functions, favors a
friend by giving him better treatment than that given to others, contravenes
the principle of impartiality. Theretore, statt and volunteers should be trained
to ensure that correct behavior becomes almost a reflex.

Impartiality is one of the more commonly recognized aspects of the role of

the Mediator.
This does not mean that the Mediator should somehow become inhuman and
not have a feeling of bias towards one party or another, but that he/she practices
in a way that minimizes any manifestation of this bias.

This is an important distinction to make. No-one can genuinely claim to be

impartial, but he/she can continualy review his/her own feelings and thoughts
about someone or a situation in order to acknowledge this and then monitor,
and adjust where necessary, his/her practice as a mediator in the light of this
awareness.

111
m o r e effective
supporting people in dispute will be if
Similarly, anyone
even if one of the peopla
in the situation, ple
he/she maintain his/her impartiality
he/she knows.
involved is someone

There can be a temptation to automatically take sides when we knoOOW

often just entrenches that person
someone who is in dispute but ultimately this on
even more in his/her despair, anger, disillusionment etc. and can make him/her
less likely to be able to resolve it.
Hence, impartiality serves a purpose in supporting Conflict resolution

whether we are a mediator or not.

In mediation and in other conflict resolution support, striving for impartiality

means that the process of resolution is untainted by the Mediator's biases and

prejudices, so that the disputants can focus on resolving their own concerns rather
than have to respond to 'input' from the mediator.
The mediator creates a channel for communication and not an obstacle to it
and remaining impartial allows for the channel to be as unimpeded as possible.
The challenges that mediators face in maintaining impartiality will be unique to
each mediator.

Reasons and Impartiality as Requirement of Ethics

In the Euthyphro, Socrates expresses astonishment that a young man would
prosecute his own father for murder. The conventional assumption he seems to
be making is that filial relationships impose
special
constraints that may override
other considerations, even in the gravest matter. For Euthyphro, by contrast, a
murder is a murder. The fact that it was committed
by his father has no bearing
upon what he is required to do about it. He must prosecute his father just as he
would a stranger.
In the dialogue, the issue is quickly dropped, unresolved. This brief
can serve as an emblem of a passage
perplexing range of problems that bedevil ethical theory
-

problems now typically grouped together under the

one way or another, all of
these problems concern the
heading of impartiality, t
way in which modern mota
philosophy seems to force detachment from
relationships, the demands of self-interest, privileged persond
the moment, and a fully situated
of view, in favor of first-person pOu
aggregate or common good, equal and universal
long-range considerations, and the relationship>
observer. point of view of a
disinterested, omniscien
There are at least three distinct elements that
namely:
run through these problems,
We grant the powerful and persistent force of
self-interest in our lives, and
assume that morality must somehow
give us reasons for constraining such
motives;
We grant that rules and principles of conduct will be useless or counter-
productive in purely local or short-range terms, and assume that morality
must give us reasons
for acting in principle inspite of it;
3 We grant that our tavorites and friends have
special claims on our attention,
and assume that morality must give us reasons for occasionally denying such
claims
In order to provide such reasons, moral theories
standardly
selfish, local, and purely personal interests are morally indistinguishable from
argue that our

many others and that reason requires us to treat similar cases similarly.
Morality, thus, requires that we should not play favorites, or manipulate
rules to our persónal advantage, or make ad hoc exceptions for ourselves. In that
sense it requires us to be impartial (Becker, 1991).

Reasons and Feelings

Broadly stated ethics is "concerned with making sense of intuitions" (Light,
et. al, 2003) about what is right and good. We do this by reasoning about our
feelings. Biologists verify that "Emotion is never truly divorced from decision
making, even when it is channeled aside by an effort of will" (Blakeslee, et. al,
2007). Physicists now confirm that seeing the world with complete objectivity is
not possible, as our observations affect what we perceive (Werner, 2002).

Moral philosopher Mary Mídgley (1983) writes "Sensitivity requires

rationality to complete it, and vice versa. There is no siding onto which emotions
can be shunted so as not to
impinge on thought." We rely on our reason to guard
against feelings that may reflect a bias, or a sense of inadequacy, or a desire simply
tO Win an argument, and also to refine and explain a felt conviction that passes
he test of critical reflection and discussion. We rely on feclings to move us to act

norally, and to ensure that our reasoning is not only logical but also humane.

SCIentific evidence supports this approach to ethics. As children, we manifest

Cmpathy before developing our rational abilities, and there is evidence for the
same order of development in the evolution of the human brain (Carey, 2007).
Empathy is a unique form of intentionality in which we are directed toward the
other's experience" This involves feeling, at least to some extent, what another
person is tecling. "In empathy we experience another human being directly as
and actions are
are
intentional being whose bodily gestures
that is, as an 2007).
a person- or states of mind" (Thompson,
or her experiences
expressive of his
and may generate "perceptiona

Empathy enables us to identify with others, does not guarantee

This
who deserves c o n c e r n and respect."
ethical as a being
conduct, but it makes morality possible. "Aid to others in need would never
an
of the other
tò take an
without the fellow-feeling that drives people
be internalized as a duty sentiments came first; moral principles
second" (de
Moral
interest in one another.
Waal, 2007).
Conscience, at its best,
reflects our integration of moral sentiments and
We should test our conscience, however, by explaining to others the
principles. to concerns
for our moral presumptions, and we should listen carefully
reasons
when dealing with ethical issues among
thev may have. This is especially important about the environment.
members or friends, but applies as well to concerns
family
our participation in a moral
Moreover, both our feelings and our reason reflect
As children, our moral
community, or more likely several moral communities.
community is our which soon broadens to include our friends and then is
family,
defined by the rules of our school. As adults, our moral community extends from
our family to our friends (at work, in our neighborhood or a support group, and
perhaps in our religious community), to our city, our country, the people of the
world whose moral and legal rights are defined by international law, and perhaps
also to a moral community that includes non-human organisms and ecosystems.

Ethics vs Feelings
Many times, there's a conflict betweern what we naturally feel and what is
considered to be ethical. Our subconscious reaction to a news event might be
hatred, jealousy or other negative feelings, but we might not be able to
argue why we feel that way.
morally
My guess is that the human race developed those subconscious
reactions as
an
evolutionary mechanism to survive. Our ancestors wouldn't have been able to
find and obtain food if
they hadn't fought for it. Arguing about ethics would've
meant that you'll have to
stay hungry and die.
The problem is most of our
feelings in today's world are unethical,
incorrect or even outright harmful. It takes a great deal of effort politically
to
self-analyze our feelings to judge whether they are ethical or retrospect and
not.
Let us take a few
common examples and see
how to tackle those
Groupism, Patriotism, Dunbar's number, feelingS:
Networks. Negative feelings to content on Social
1. Groupism

a. Natural feeling: I am
part of a
group. I supposed
become better. I also
am to help this group
am
supposed to compete with other groups.
b. Reasoning: Being part of a herd made it easier for us ancestors to survive
in the wild. There were so
many survival benefits that belonging to a
group brought. Naturally, our ancestors started
developing good feelings
about belonging to a group.
C. Ethical viewpoint: Help the group. Help other groups too. There is no
compelling reason to compete in todáy's times of peace.

2. Patriotism
a. Natural feeling: I was born in a place. I am supposed to help people in
the geographical vicinity around me. There are human-decided borders
that define my country. Those outside the border don't deserve that much
attention as those inside the border do.
b. Reasoning: Patriotism is Groupism in a higher scale. Most borders were
drawn for political benefits by a small group of individual running that
country. There have been countless stories of propaganda by governments
to motivate people to join their wars to fight people over borders. We
humans tend to justify these efforts as noble.
C. Ethical viewpoint: Wars are always bad. There is no reason to be proud
of your country just because you were born in it. It is okay to be in your
country and help your country because you are used to it. But it is also
okay to move to other countries and help those countries.

3. Dunbar's number
a. Natural feeling: I cannot maintain more than 150 stable relationships.
b. Reasoning: Our brains have linmited capacity and it becomes mentally
hard to maintain more relationships.
c. Ethical viewpoint: Acceding to the Dunbar's number promotes Groupism.

Just as w e push ourselves to become better humans, we should also try

to push the Dunbar number limit further. Accepting that all life forms in
this world (and outside the world it lite exists) are part of the same group

counters the negative effects of Groupism.

to content on Social Networks
4. Negative feelings
Natural feeling: I hate what's being posted on Facebook. They are just
a.

stupid selfies, people gloating

their achievements or just distracting,
unproductive content.
with others since ince our
have been taught to compete
of us
b. Reasoning: Many ourselves with others.
childhood. We tend to compare and w e look down
are attention-seeking wn
selfies because they
We don't like attention.
those who seek handle ton
upon and we c a n n o t
content is noise to us

Distracting, unproductive
o u r daily
life.
much noise in
don't have to compete
with o u r friends. We can
We
C. Ethical vicwpoint: o u r lives with theirs
achievements without comparing
applaud their life attention. Comedians.
have to look down upon those who seek
We don't But w e don't look
entertainers are attention-seeking.
actors and other
down upon them.
Social networks thrusted aren't
It is up to us to filter out noise in our lives.
into our face. We can choose to stay away
from them it they are noisy.
feed and tailor it to our
Or even better, adjust the content shown in our
comtort.

Conclusion
It is easy to give in to our feelings. An analogy would be with unhealthy foods.
It is easy to choose unhealthy foods because they are tasty and easy to prepare. But
we hit the 8ym, avoid those foods and exercise because we want to become better
individuals. Similarly, we can take the ethical route, avoid negative feelings and
exercise those reactions because we want to become better individuals.

Steps in Moral Reasoning Model

Ethical reasoning is how to think about
issues of
of reasoning be right
wrong. Processes or
cantaught, and the college or
to teach these university is an appropriate place
processes because so often it is taught no
is essential for a successful
àdulthood. place else, and because it
institutions may teach ethics, they donotAlthough parents and especially religiol
courses are the logical place to teach always teach ethical reasoning.
ethical issues
the
cognitive Acadenu
as relate to the
content of process of reasoning especldt
knowledgeable one is about
a
particular discipline. No matter
byethical reasoning, ong- his/her profession, if the ne
Compromised. term success in the knowledge is not
backe
career is likely to be sevelc
Ethical reasoning is
hard because
behavior is tar
harder to there are so
what we learn from
our
display than one would
many ways to
iai. Eu
(Sternberg, parents, from school, and
2009). To intervene, expect simply on the bas ot
individuals must go from our religious ra inins
through a series of steps, and *

116
unless all of the steps are completed,
regardless of the amount of training they likely behave in an ethical way,
are not to
they have received in ethics, and
their levels of other types of skills. regardless of
Given the fact that ethical dilemmas
may not
through the use of codes of ethics, it might be useful toalways
be readily resolved
have a framework in which
to analyze and make ethical decisions. The
following ethical decision-making
model comes trom the work of
Corey et. al. (1998).
Step 1: ldentify the problem. What facts make this an ethical situation?
Step 2: Identify the potential issues involved. What level of ethical issues are
we
dealing with: systemic, corporate, or individual?
Step 3: Review relevant ethical guidelines. Given the facts and the ethical
issues, what alternative actions are possible in this situation?
Step 4: Know relevant laws and regulations. Who will be affected by the
alternatives and to what degree?
Step 5: Obtain Consultation. Use ethical principles to decide on the best
alternative. The ethics of each of the most plausible alternatives is
assessed using ethical principles or rules.
Step 6: Consider possible and probable courses of action. Can the bestalternative
be put into effect? Having decided on one alternative, we need to see
whether there are any practical constraints which might prevent that
alternative from being acted upon.
Step 7: List the consequences of the probable courses of action.

Step 8: Decide on what appears to be the best course of action. Implementing

the best alternative. Having selected the best alternative which is
not ruled out by practical constraints, we need to decide on the steps

necessary to carry it out.

that you keep your immediate supervisor and all
It is extremely important
involved parties informed during this process. After you have made your decision,
take some the process and to review what you have learned with
time to reflect on

a trusted supervisor or colleague.

The Difference Between Reason and Will

mind which selects, at of
the moment
Will, generally, is that faculty of the
the various desires present. Will does
decision, the strongest desire from among from
not refer to any particular desire, but
rather to the mechanism for choosing
the will is important as o n e of the distinct
among one's desires. Within philosophy It is considered central
r e a s o n and understanding.
parts of the mind along with
-

action.
in enabling deliberate
to the field of ethics because of its role

117
we realize that our essential
ourselves,
When we become conscious of
and desiring. These are
qualities are endless urging, craving,
striving, wanting,
atfirmed that we can
o u r will. Schopenhauer
characteristics of that which we call
are also essentially and basically will.
think that all other phenonmena
legitimately
to hinm, will "is the innermost essence, the core, of every particular
According
in every blindly ating force of nature
thing and also of the whole. It appearsman."
and also in the deliberate conduct of
Schopenhauer (1998) said that hic
the will depends o n knowledge. According
predecessors mistakenly thought that
uses knowledge in order to find an object
to him, though, the will is primary and
that will satisty its craving. That which, in us, we call will is Kant's "thing in itself"
according to Schopenhauer.

Schopenhauer's philosophy holds that all nature, including man, is the

expression of an insatiable will to life. It is through the will that mankind finds all
their suftering. Desire for more is what causes this suffering. He argues that only
aesthetic pleasure creates momentary escape from the will.

Since the derivation of actions from laws requires reason, the will is nothing
but practical reason. To explain, the will is guided by reason, where, as determined
by reason, action is performed according to rational requirements, or laws of
reason. Reason directs action by "determination of the will"- as long as the will
is guided by reason. Where the will is determined by reason in accordance with
which action is performed, reason is practical, i.e. action-directing. Reason has,
in other words, the capacity to direct action. Further, where the will is
guided by
reason, it is free.