Dr. T. Govier (Canada)
Reasoning and Applications

These explorations illustrate the importance of many human values and principles. Broadly speaking, these values and principles fall into two groups.

A. Values and principles connected with respect for persons , human dignity, and human rights. Based on the human capacity for reflection, choice, and moral action, these values serve as the foundation for human rights, which are recognized internationally and within most countries. Fundamental human rights include the right to life; the right not to be punished unless proven guilty; the right to fair legal trial if accused; the right to non-discriminatory treatment and equality under the law; the right to property; the right of victims to redress or reparation; and the duty to punish or appropriately treat perpetrators. In the context of moral theory, we may regard these values as being deontologically grounded , as within the context of a theory such as that of Immanuel Kant.

B. Values connected with wellbeing, security and peace. For persons within a society to meaningfully possess human rights, that society must be characterized by decent level of order and rule of law. These are necessary for the physical security of persons. A prime requirement of such physical security is peace. Peace may be defined, minimally, as the absence of war. More positively, we may define peace as the absence of war and the presence of nonviolent mechanisms for conducting and resolving conducts within the society. Without peace, life is so insecure that human rights and moral choices mean very little. Commitment to moral principles, as in A above, must be tempered with a consideration for their consequences. In the context of moral theory, attention to wellbeing and peace requires an appeal to values that are consequentially grounded , as might fit, for example, the moral theory of John Stuart Mill.

From what has been said so far, it can be seen that two moral perspectives are required in order to examine our questions about responding to wrongs (moral mistakes). We have to think in terms of principles (A) and we have to think in terms of consequences (B). Furthermore, there are distinct considerations and sub-principles within (A) and (B).

Thus, many principles and values apply, or potentially apply, to practical problems. Since this is the case, no single principle can be regarded as absolute .

We cannot reason in the simple way: ‘All cases of W must be resolved according to Principle X; the present problem is a case of W; therefore, the present problem must be resolved according to Principle X.' In other words, applied ethics is not simply a matter of taking absolute principles and applying them to cases .

Neither is it reasonable to believe that there is a fixed system for arranging these principles in fixed priority ordering (sometimes called a lexical ordering). Thus, reasoning about cases cannot take the following form. ‘When Principles X, Y, and Z all apply to a case W, Principle X always takes priority over Principles Y and Z; Principles X, Y, and Z all apply to this case, W; therefore this case must be resolved according to Principle X.'

How do we reason about these cases? This is the question to be explored.

Case
Reasoning about cases
Reasoning about emotions