Moral Agent - Capability and responsibility to make morally sound decisions and actions.  

Moral Patient - Autonomy is lacking in making morally sound decisions and actions. 

Moral Advocate - Supports or promotes ethical considerations and the well-being of moral patients. 

Moral Antagonist – A moral agent that does not uphold their duty to the moral good of society, often working against the moral advocate. 

Neither - Absolved of moral consideration. Including: Inanimate objects & deceased person(s). 

How Identifying Moral Agents Within Writing Builds Ethos, Pathos, and Logos

Difficulties

Identifying Moral Agency within writings and in general societal problems can be complex. In Michael Stoltzfuz 's dissertation where he analyzes Alfred’s Schutz contributions to the study of moral agency explains “that a moral agent does not perform on cue as if moral action were as simple as applying a universal mathematical formula to a geometric problem” (Stoltzfuz vi). There is no direct formula for identifying moral agents and due to this, conversations on the topic of whether something/someone is a patient, agent, advocate, or neither are continuously evolving and open to interpretation. This complexity arises from the inherent nature of morality and the diverse range of perspectives and values held by individuals within a society. When identifying moral agency using Stoltzfuz's analysis of Schutz's contributions, a comprehensive approach is necessary, considering not only the actions of individuals but also the underlying intentions, values, and the broader social and cultural contexts in which these actions occur. This is why “the resourceful look of intelligence in moral action is critically important” (Stoltzfuz vi). Describing the difficulties with identifying moral agencies leads to lower chances of subduing oversimplified or reductionist views of moral behavior and ethics. By acknowledging the complexity and multifaceted nature of moral agency, we avoid falling into the trap of simplistic judgments or rigid categorizations that may hinder our understanding of individuals' ethical actions and hinder the development of nuanced solutions to societal problems.

Questions:

1. In what ways would defining a type of moral agency be difficult?

2. If you ran into something that seemed like 2 different types of a moral agency, how would you narrow it down to only one?

Trisha Jenkins, in "The Militarization of American Professional Sports: How the Sports–War Intertext Influences Athletic Ritual and Sports Media," uses various types of moral agency to express how the militarization of sporting events devalues the war experience. Jenkins explains that “While trying to win the 1968 Presidential election, Lyndon Johnson’s vice president, Hubert Humphrey, likewise used sports-speak in an attempt to disassociate himself gracefully from Johnson’s policies on Vietnam, explaining to the public that he was not ‘calling the signals’ in the war, but acted more as ‘a lineman doing some downfield blocking’" (13).

This supports the idea that Hubert Humphrey was acting as a moral agent and moral advocate for those that were moral patients or neither. Although Humphrey’s intentions were morally ethical, the actions displayed Humphrey as a moral patient, especially after using phrases that belittled the war experience. Hubert Humphrey had no choice but to support Johnson’s decision on the policies in Vietnam and, therefore, used sports context to allow those who were moral patients to the government to understand the situation clearly. This assists the idea that Hubert Humphrey was a moral patient in this situation and was depreciating the war experience.

Tricia Jenkins, in writing the article, acts as a moral advocate, when arguing that,“Nonetheless, the overlap of sports-speak with war-speak is problematic because sports-speak employed in war coverage works to trivialize the weightiness of war and makes the whole process appear like a leisure-time contest that will result in a clear winner with few serious losses” (246).

This passage of the article supports the idea that the author has a sense of morals that are reasonable and speaks for the moral patients that are disturbed by the use of sports metaphors that undervalue those that have experienced the consequences of war. Displaying ethical reasoning for why sports metaphors should be used cautiously, especially in passages about war, “because sports-speak employed in war coverage works to trivialize the weightiness of war and makes the whole process appear like a leisure-time contest that will result in a clear winner with few serious losses”(Jenkins, 247). Additionally, this could cause moral patients to forget that “The conversation, in other words, becomes more about who is “winning” the war, rather than the legitimacy or purposefulness of the war and the serious economic and human costs”(Jenkins, 247). Forgetting the purpose undermines that problem, furthermore ignoring the reason why the issue of war occurred in the first place. This all begins with the moral advocate and the moral agent and how the issues are addressed and accounted for.

While conventional terminology, "moral agent" is academically accepted, students should use describe moral agency in a way that avoids the use of repetitive vocabulary. For instance, rather than employing the term "moral agent," students can describe individuals engaged in ethical decision-making, exemplifying their capacities, and responsibilities. In essence, the choice of language in discussing moral agents and patients in academic essays should prioritize clarity and inclusivity. The use of vivid descriptions and relatable examples fosters a deeper understanding of ethical concepts, helping to justify an argument.

An example of a student indirectly identifying moral agency reads:

"This essay will present the argument that escalated burdens of student loan debt in the United States are caused by raised tuition prices and minimal financial assistance, leading to defaults on payments and proving that student loans not to be in the best interest of students or society."

In analyzing the roles of moral agents and patients within this context, the moral agents are the educational institutions responsible for determining and implementing tuition policies, as well as the government entities administering financial aid programs. The students assume the position of patients and are subject to the consequences of these policies. Educational institutions are moral agents; they reserve the power to influence tuition costs; impacting the financial burdens created by the students. The ethical responsibility of these institutions lies in balancing their fiscal needs with the social obligation to facilitate accessible education. Governmental bodies, by administering financial aid, assume a significant moral agency role in mitigating the financial strain on students. The ethical evaluation of their actions relies on the effectiveness and inclusivity of the financial assistance programs they provide. Students, positioned as patients in this ethical framework, navigate the consequences of the decisions made by educational institutions and government bodies. Their agency lies in the decision to pursue higher education and the subsequent management of incurred debt. The ethical lens should analyze whether students are adequately informed about the long-term implications of their financial commitments and whether the structures enable them to make informed choices. Identifying the moral agencies in an essay is crucial as it establishes a framework for ethical analysis within the context. By explicitly highlighting the roles of educational institutions and government bodies as moral agents, the thesis statement acknowledges the entities responsible for shaping and implementing policies that directly contribute to the issue at hand

Moral Agency Flowchart 

Moral agency can be a complicated concept. When deciding if a subject (person/object/group/industry) has moral agency, or if the subject can be given any additional labels like moral antagonist, moral patient, or moral advocate, there are lots of considerations to be made. This flowchart can be used to determine the moral agency of a subject, by suggesting considerations relating to decision making, responsibility, societal values, spiritual values, and intention. 

The first question, “Is the subject in consideration a nonliving thing (deceased person or inanimate object?”, is simply used to direct further considerations. If the subject is living thing, any of the moral labels can be applied. If the subject is a non-living thing, the subject can either be a moral patient or lack moral agency entirely, and this depends on whether or not the subject is/has been valued by society or any spiritual doctrines. If the subject has been valued by either, then the label of moral patient is applied. Moral patients are most commonly living things which are incapable of making decisions and doing basic analyzation, due to lack of moral agency. However, moral patients can also be nonliving things which are worthy of moral consideration, like an artifact– someone’s diary from long ago, for example– or the body of a deceased person. This flowchart aims to make sure inanimate objects of bodies of the deceased are also considered as moral patients, and worthy of moral consideration.

If the subject is a living thing, then the next question becomes: “Is the subject capable of making decisions and analyzing basic situations?”.  If the subject is not capable, then is the subject fits the description of a moral patient, as explained in the above paragraph. If the subject is capable, then the person, group, or industry is a moral agent, and will fit into one of the two remaining labels. The next questions aim to decipher whether or not the subject is a moral antagonist or advocate in addition to having moral agency. 

The first question for the previously determined moral agents is, “Does this moral agent make major decisions which affect/influence society, an individual, or a situation?”. If the answer is no, then the subject is solely considered a moral agent. However, if the answer is yes, then said subject could be a moral antagonist or advocate– and the following question aims to decipher this by asking, “Does this moral agent make moral decisions?” When a subject acts morally, then the subject is considered a moral advocate. Moral advocates make ethically correct large decisions which effect society, individuals, or situations.

If the subject does not act morally, they are not automatically a moral antagonist, because the subject could have made these immoral decisions without the intention of doing harm. This possibility was not ruled out by the question “is the subject capable of making moral decisions and analyzing basic situations?”, because there are situations where a subject might be a moral agent and even make harmful decisions, but not with the intention of harm An example of this scenario could be someone living in poverty who is aware of the environmental and social effects of buying from fast fashion brands like SHEIN, but still do because they cannot afford to shop elsewhere. This concept of intention is emphasized by the next question “Are these immoral decisions made with the purpose of harming others?”. 

Assuming the subject does purposefully make these immoral decisions, then the subject qualifies as a moral antagonist. However, the subject does not make immoral decisions with the intention of harming others, then the subject belongs in a gray area which depends on the situation and the values of the person who is evaluating the moral agency. Subjects in the gray area could be considered moral antagonists, or just moral agents and nothing further. This specific situation will be explored with the character David from the movie Shaun of the Dead.

Example 2: The British Government

In a classroom setting, the teacher acts as the moral agent. The teacher is responsible for creating a safe and inclusive learning environment, guiding students' behavior, and making morally sound decisions. They have the authority to set rules, provide guidance, and enforce consequences for inappropriate actions. The students, in this case, are the moral patients. They have varying degrees of autonomy and moral development, and their actions may not always align with ethical standards. Students may engage in behaviors such as cheating, bullying, or disrupting the learning environment without considering the moral implications. A moral advocate in this scenario could be a school counselor or a peer mediator. Their role is to support and advocate for the well-being of the students. They intervene in situations where students may be facing challenges, promote empathy and conflict resolution, and provide guidance on ethical decision-making.

In this example, there are all types of moral agency that can be identified. The veterinarian is the moral advocate. The Veterinarians goal is to help the patient, in this case the dog, and through surgery she was able to do so. The moral patient was the dog, Goose. The dog did not know eating the t-shirt would have sent him to the vet, nor did the dog make the decision to eat the shirt as a form of protest towards whoever’s t-shirt it was. The dog, rather, ate the t-shirt most likely because he thought the shirt was a toy. The dog has no moral agency, but he needed help, and without the ability to get that help, a moral agent or moral advocate would need to be there to grant him the care he needed. The moral agent was the dogs owner. The owner made the choice to go to the vet with the dog and ensure he was given help. The owner could have made the decision to allow the dog to die, however that could be deemed immoral to allow the dog to suffer. In this case, the owner has decided was is best to take the dog to the vet. 

In the Marine biologist example, there are all types of moral agency that can be defined.  Finley the sea turtle is the moral patient.  He cannot act or make decisions about his own welfare but is directly impacted by the actions and decisions of others.  Dr. Elena Rivera is the moral agent.  She has the capacity to make ethical choices about Finley's care, such as performing the surgery to remove the fishing net.  The fisherman acts as the moral advocate by rescuing Finley and bringing him to the rehabilitation center.  He ensures Finley has the opportunity to receive care from someone who can help.  The fishing net and the humans who discarded it is the moral antagonist.  Though the fishing net itself is a non-moral being, its improper disposal by people caused it to harm Finley, creating this whole situation.