HPG Chapter 3 SW 625

First, remember that Gert's theory is only an articulation of what the

common moral system looks like. It does not claim to solve every moral issue or provide unique answers to every moral problem.

According to Gert, an understanding of rationality is an important part of the moral system. Any action that is not rational

is irrational.

There is some evidence that suggests that Gert's common morality framework is more effective at promoting

moral sensitivity and judgment than other traditional approaches (Sanders & Hoffman, 2010).

In addition to the elements discussed, part of what makes the moral system the moral system is that moral rules do get violated. These violations are either justifiable violations or they are not. From a principlist perspective, an ethical dilemma occurs when

one is faced with a decision that involves competing ethical principles.

values clarification

the morally relevant features of a situation simply pertain to the facts of the situation.

A final point to make regarding particular moral rules and ideals is that although the general moral rules are stable and unchanging (universal), particular moral rules and ideals

are not. They are subject to change in accordance with cultural shifts in values and practices and are dynamic in nature.

there are two important things you must know to determine if a person's actions are irrational:

(a) Are they causing harm to themselves? (b) If so, do they have a good reason to harm themselves? A "good" reason would be if it can be demonstrated that in causing harm to self, one is preventing a greater harm either to oneself or someone else.

According to Gert (2005), there are two aspects of impartiality:

(a) application to a certain group and (b) within a particular respect.

The common moral system

(a) is an informal public system; (b) is agreed on by all rational individuals; (c) is characterized by impartiality; and (d) consists of both moral rules and ideals.

This description of Gert's theory and its application to ethical decision-making for social workers and other helping professionals echoes Gert et al.'s (2006) hope that an understanding of the moral system will achieve the following:

(a) reaffirm good decisions and challenge bad ones by being able to make one's moral reasoning more explicit; (b) provide a framework that clarifies the ethical and nonethical issues in a case and thus foster more meaningful dialogue about disputes over morally acceptable solutions; and (c) provide a framework that is truly useful in explicitly dealing with really tough cases.

Harms that all rational people want to avoid are listed as follows:

1. Death 2. Pain 3. Disability 4. Loss of pleasure 5. Loss of freedom

Gert has identified 10 moral rules. He claims all rational and impartial people would agree that as long as these rules are not violated, any action can be morally permissible. Notice that the first 5 rules replicate the harms that rational people want to avoid. The violation of one or more of the second 5 rules in an ethical scenario indicates that one of the five harms people wish to avoid is more likely to occur. The moral rules are as follows:

1. Do not kill. 2. Do not cause pain. 3. Do not disable. 4. Do not deprive of freedom. 5. Do not deprive of pleasure. 6. Do not deceive. 7. Do not cheat. 8. Keep your promise. 9. Obey the law. 10. Do your duty.

Common morality not only consists of moral rules that all impartial and rational people would agree to; it also contains moral ideals that, though morally good, are not morally required. The moral ideals include:

1. Prevent or reduce (risk of) death. 2. Prevent or reduce (risk of) pain. 3. Prevent or reduce (risk of) disability. 4. Prevent or reduce (risk of) loss of pleasure. 5. Prevent or reduce (risk of) loss of freedom.

Step 1: Identify the Morally Relevant Features of the Case. 10 questions that can aid in determining whether a fact or circumstance is morally relevant to a particular case.

1. Which moral rule is being violated? 2. What harms are: (a) being caused by the violation; (b) avoided by the violation; or (c) prevented by the violation? 3. What are the desires and beliefs of the person toward whom the rule is being violated? 4. Is the nature of the relationship between the person violating the rule and the person toward whom the rule is being violated such that the former sometimes has a duty to violate certain moral rules with regard to the latter without their consent? 5. What goods are being promoted by the violation? 6. Is the rule being violated toward someone to prevent the person from violating a moral rule when their violation would be (a) unjustified or (b) weakly justified? 7. Is the rule being violated toward a person because they have violated a moral rule (a) unjustifiably or (b) with a weak justification? 8. Are there any alternative actions or policies that would be morally preferable? 9. Is the violation being done intentionally or knowingly? 10. Is the situation an emergency such that people are not likely to plan to be in that kind of situation?

Universality and Cross-Cultural Practice Bryan, Valerie; Sanders, Scott; Kaplan, Laura E.. The Helping Professional's Guide to Ethics (p. 50). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.

As we have gained experience teaching ethics using this framework, we have learned that one main source of skepticism about the common moral system is the premise that it is universal. People vary in their levels of skepticism, and perhaps there are naturally skeptical readers who have read thus far and still are uncertain about the universal nature of common morality.

Step 2: Estimate the

Consequences of Everyone Knowing that the Violation is Impartially and Publicly Allowed or Not Allowed.

This discussion of Gert's moral framework begins by highlighting the assumptions that undergird the framework itself:

The first assumption is that a moral system exists and can be described. Second, the existence of a common moral system also assumes that all persons are both vulnerable and fallible.

The moral system also allows for, but does not require,

rationally acceptable beliefs. Belief in a higher power, for example, is not rationally required for all persons to get along and avoid harms, but it is rationally acceptable for persons to not only believe in a higher power, but also hold divergent views about the nature of higher powers or deities.

Gert believed that divergent moral views were best explained by the

social and cultural influences that shape the common moral system to specific societies.