Moral Disagreements Notes

Final Exam Details

• Date & Time: April 16, 9am-12pm in SAC 551
• Preparation:
  • Review rules posted on Moodle and by Registrar’s Office
  • Focus on last 6 weeks of the term for content review
  • Bring extra pens
• Format:
  • 5 essay questions, 400-600 words each
  • Be specific with clear examples, different from those discussed in class

Class Overview

• Topic: Moral Disagreements
• Key Areas:
  • Sources of moral disagreement
  • Challenging moral cases at micro and macro levels
  • Importance of moral decision-making
• Required Reading:
  • Bryan, V. et al. (2022). The helping professional’s guide to ethics: Theory in practice. (Chapters 9-10)

Learning Objectives

• Explain moral disagreement through common moral lenses.
• Identify sources of moral disagreement and analyze challenging case studies.

Sources of Moral Disagreement

1. Ranking of Harms: Different prioritizations of deaths, pain, disability, freedom, and pleasure.
2. Estimation of Consequences: Varied assessments of outcomes related to rule violations.
3. Interpretation of Rules: Diverging understandings of ethical guidelines.
4. Scope of Morality: Conflicting views on who deserves moral protections and to what extent.

Examples of Moral Disagreement

• Voluntary Euthanasia:
  • Some may prioritize the harm of pain over death.
  • Others might see death as a more significant harm.
• Rule Interpretation:
  • Some justify deception in specific contexts, while others never condone it.
• Animal Rights:
  • Activists argue for moral protections for animals; opponents disagree.

Competency Determination Framework

1. Cognitive Understanding: Evaluate if the client understands the decision being made.
2. Appreciation: Assess the client’s recognition of how the decision applies to their situation.
3. Rational Decision-Making: Ensure the client's choices align with a rational basis.
4. Interfering Factors: Identify any elements that might cloud the client’s judgment, such as mood disorders.

Moral Ideals

• Objectives:
  • Prevent/reduce risk of death, pain, disability, loss of freedom, and loss of pleasure.
• Justification Process:
  1. Rationality: Would rational individuals agree to the violation under observed circumstances?
  2. Impartiality: Is the violation acceptable universally?
  3. Public Allowance: Would this violation be acceptable if known publicly?
• If yes to all, the violation may be justified; a no could indicate it may not.

Important Moral Features

1. Violation of moral rules.
2. Harms prevented/caused.
3. Desires and beliefs of affected parties.
4. Relational context of the violation.
5. Goods promoted through the violation.
6. Presence of viable alternatives to the violation.
7. Intentionality behind the violation.
8. Emergency context.

Common Moral Concerns

• Importance of safeguarding client confidentiality.
• Issues with informed consent.
• Dual/multiple relationships.
• Client competence and paternalism.

Ethical Decision-Making Process

• 6Q Model:
  1. Who will be helpful?
  2. What are my choices?
  3. When have I faced similar dilemmas?
  4. Where do ethical guidelines lead me?
  5. Why choose this action?
  6. How do I enact this decision?

Blocks to Ethical Decisions

• Personal conflicts, unconscious biases, emotional reactions, and self-interest can hinder decision-making.
• Enable ethical decision-making through empathy and recognizing longer-term goals, practicing compassion, and maintaining objectivity.

Ethical Maturity

• Defined as the reflective, rational, emotional, and intuitive ability to determine right from wrong, implement decisions, and learn from experiences.

Real-World Application: Case Study of Bob

• Assessment: Evaluating Bob’s competence regarding treatment decisions based on Gert’s criteria (understanding, appreciation, coordination of information, and presence of disorders).
• Moral Dilemma: Balancing the medical team's perspective on his decision against the ethical implications of his autonomy.
• Final Recommendation: Respect client autonomy while ensuring informed, rational decisions are made within the bounds of ethical standards, demonstrating compassion and understanding of the complexity of moral disagreements.