2.5 Moral competence

Morality, understood as the factual value system of a community, regulates the coexistence of this community through its commandments and prohibitions. It determines the thoughts and actions of its members. People in such a community are socialised through everyday interactions but also through education and training. This occurs in such a way that the prevailing moral concepts are often unconsciously and unquestioningly taken for granted. It is often only when you are personally affected and realise that your own individual value system collides with group morals that you become aware of this self-evidence. In this sense, you would feel remorse if you acted in accordance with a moral system that you do not support.

example 1

A classic example of the breakdown of such moral self-evident truths is the internal conflict that can arise in a situation where one does not want to betray a friend, but would be violating the moral commandment "Thou shalt not lie".

example 2

In another example that is often cited, internal conflicts can arise in a pacifist who strictly rejects violence but suddenly finds him or herself in a situation in which the use of violence for self-protection appears to be the first option.

example 3

In the area of mining, an inner conflict with remorse may arise if a construction equipment operator is tasked to level the sites of a resettled indigenous community to prepare the space for mining activities. While they may want to comply with their orders, they may also feel remorse due to the fact that the site consists of sacred land of the indigenous community, such as ancestoral graves.

The problematic situation for an individual who finds themselves in such a situation is that they are thrown back on themselves if there is no public authority or institution that could solve such a case in a generally binding manner. Also the individual cannot shift their own moral responsibility to such entity. Such cases of conflict depend on the individual concerned and their inner values. Ultimately they have to be decided by the individual themselves. Moreover the behaviour resulting from this individual decision must after all be justified and legitimised before others.

Cita­tion

From: Pieper (2017) Pi17, p. 33, authors‘ translation Original Quote

However, the fundamental willingness to justify such a decision, to justify it to others, is an indication that the person concerned is not immoral, but that in exceptional cases and extreme situations it may be right not to fulfil the demands of a certain moral norm in favour of a more highly valued norm.

A person can therefore also act morally even if they violate a moral standard. This sounds contradictory at first, but can be resolved if the term "acting morally" is analysed from two perspectives.

On the one hand, from the perspective of the applicable moral system, which demands that the applicable rules are adhered to. From this perspective, breaking the rules would be immoral and should be sanctioned.

On the other hand, from the perspective of the inner "will to do good", the unconditional desire to do the right thing in the given situation. From this perspective, one violates the applicable morals with good reason and still acts morally. This is the case even if one is sanctioned or disregarded by the community. One then refers to the concept of morality.

The aforementioned examples and the two perspectives on moral behaviour point to the fundamental freedom that every person has. This inner freedom is expressed in the fact that, despite all the sanctions and moral constraints of a community of practice, one can also act differently. In some cases one may even have to act differently out of one's own conviction. A person demonstrates moral competence by claiming their freedom in this way and taking a clear stance for good reason. That are reasons that arise from a person's unconditional desire to do good and for which s/he is responsible both to him/herself and to his/her fellow human beings.

Cita­tion

From: Pieper (2017) Pi17, p. 38, authors‘ translation Original Quote

Moral competence in the true sense is therefore not possessed by someone who has unquestioningly internalised the applicable moral code and the common value system. Such a person would be no more than a well-trained animal, to use NIETZSCHE's words. Instead moral competence is possessed exclusively by someone who has made morality the principle of his or her will forming and practice.

Morality here refers to the special inner quality of a person's morally relevant decisions and actions. It is the striving for goodness that has become a firm basic attitude, which utilises inner and outer freedom in order to act for good reasons. The more a community's prevailing moral system undermines this aspiration and uses power and coercion to enforce the established, perhaps outdated or imposed values of supposed authorities, the greater the need for moral competence and the examination of the morality of individual actions.

A moral system that forces its members to adhere to certain behaviours and fails to convince them loses its claim to moral commitment; a commitment that can only ever be based on the free self-commitment of individuals.

Exercise

 Task 2.3: Moral conflicts (exercise for reflection)

Please name or develop three examples in which raw material engineers may experience internal moral conflicts or remorse. Which moral imperatives or prohibitions collide here?

Time to complete approx. 15 min.

Exercise

 Task 2.4: Moral behaviour (knowledge exercise)

• Why is the following sentence only an apparent paradox: "A person can act morally even if they violate a moral code"?
• What is morality?
• Can the mafia have morals?
• What is moral competence?
• What is a professional ethic?
• How are offences against morality sanctioned?
• Why is mutual understanding particularly important in pluralistic societies?

Please explain your answers.

Time to complete approx. 45 min.