ETHICS: Principle of Ethical Behavior in Modern Society

Lesson I: MORAL AGENT

Developing Virtue as Habit

Moral character refers to the existence or lack of virtues such as integrity, courage,
strength, honesty, and loyalty. To say that a certain person has a good moral character
means that he/she is a good person and good citizen with a sound moral compass.

1. MORAL CHARACTER AND VIRTUES

The word character gives a distinct mark by which one thing was distinguished from
others, and then primarily to mean the collection of qualities that distinguish one person to
another. This stress on distinctiveness or individuality tends to merge ‘character’ with
‘personality’ in modern usage.

The use in ethics of the word “character”, however, has linguistic history. According
to Greek philosopher Aristotle, he tells us that there are two distinct to human excellences:

a. The excellence of thought

b. The excellence of character

His phrase for excellences of character is always translated as “moral virtue(s)” and
“moral excellence”. The Greek ‘ethikos’ (ethical) is the adjective similar with ‘ethos’
(character). So, when we speak the a ‘virtue’ or an excellence of moral character, the
highlighting is not on mere distinctiveness or individuality, but on the blend of qualities that
make a person the sort of ethically admirable individual he/she is.

“Moral character,” therefore, in philosophical sense, refers to having or lacking

moral virtue. If one lacks virtue, he/she may have any of the moral vices, or he/she may be
marked by condition somewhere in between virtue and vice, such as continence or
incontinence.

The agent is morally responsible for having the moral character traits itself, or for the
outcome of the traits. Hence, a certain moral character trait is a trait for which the agent is
morally responsible.

2. THE CIRCULAR RELATION OF ACTS AND CHARACTER

In the process of moral development, there is the circular relationships between acts
that builds character and moral character itself. Not all acts help to build moral character,
but those acts which come form moral characters certainly matter in moral development.
Hence, there appears the apparent circular relationship between individual acts and moral
character. A person’s actions determine his/her moral character, but moral character itself
produces acts that help in developing either virtue or immorality.

This goes to show that moral development should also be understood in the sense of
human flourishing. This flourishing is attained by the habitual practice of moral and
intellectual excellence, or ‘virtue’. In the context of developing morally which also brings
about self-realization and happiness, acting in line with virtues is acting in accordance with
reason. Indeed, philosopher like Aristotle hold that the function of human being consists in
activities which manifest the best states of his rational aspect, that is, the virtue.

Virtuous traits of character ought to be stable and enduring and are not mere
products of fortune, but of learning, constant practice, and cultivation. But we have to add

Prepared by: Jeric D. Carreon, RPm. 1 | P a g e

 ETHICS: Principle of Ethical Behavior in Modern Society

that virtuous traits of character are called excellence of the human being because they
are the best exercise of reason, which is the activity characteristic of human beings. In this
sense, the Greek moralist believe, virtuous acts complete or perfect human life.

Aristotle states that, it is not easy to define in rules which acts deserve moral praise and
blame, and that, these matters require the judgement of the virtuous person, that is,
someone with good moral character.

3. MORAL CHARCTER AS DISPOSITIONS

The moral character traits that constitute a person’s moral character are
characteristically understood as behavioral and effective dispositions. Generally speaking.
‘disposition’ are particular kinds of properties or characteristics that objects can possess.

Among moral beings, moral character traits – either virtue or evils – are also considered
as dispositions. Moral character traits are those dispositions of character for which a
person is deserving of a positive reactive attitude, such as praise or gratitude, is a virtue.
On the other hand, a vice is a moral character trait for which the agent is deserving of
negative reactive attitude, such as resentment or blame.

In other word, a good moral character is practically a disposition to do virtuous acts.

Oppositely, a bad moral character is, in effect, a disposition to do malicious deeds.

4. SIX STAGES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT

The American psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg (1927-1987) his best know for his theory of
stages of moral development. In principle, he agreed with Swiss clinical psychologist Jean
Piaget’s (1896-1980) theory of moral development but wanted to develop his ideas further.

Kohlberg’s employed Piaget’s storytelling technique to tell stories involving moral

dilemmas. In this case, Kohlberg offered an option to be considered, for example, between
the rights of some authority and needs of some deserving person who is being unfairly
treated. One of his best-known stories concerns man called Heinz or Heinz Dilemma:

“In Europe, a woman was near to death from special kind of cancer. There was one
drug that the doctor thought might save her. It was a form of radium that the druggist in
the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist
was charging ten times what the drug cost him to make. He paid $200 for a small dose of
the drug. The sick woman’s husband Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the
money, but he could only get together about $100 which is half of what is cost. He told the
druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the
druggist said: “NO! I DISCOVERED THE DRUG AM I’M GOING TO MAKE MONEY FROM IT.”
So, Heinz got desperate and broke into man’s store to steal the drugs-for his wife.
(Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development).
By analyzing the answers from the children of various ages to these questions, Kohlberg
hoped to discern the ways in which moral reasoning developed as individual grow older.
What Kohlberg was mostly interested in was not whether the children judge the action right
or wrong, but the reasons provided for the decision. He discovered that the reason tended
to change as the children got older.

Kohlberg pinpointed three distinct levels of moral reasoning each with two sub
stages composing his so-called six stages of moral development. He believed that people

Prepared by: Jeric D. Carreon, RPm. 2 | P a g e

 ETHICS: Principle of Ethical Behavior in Modern Society

can only pass through these levels in the order listed. Each ne stage replaces the kind of
reasoning typical of previous stage. Some do not achieve all the stage.

Level 1 – PRE-CONVENTIONAL MORALITY

 Stage 1 – Obedience and Punishment Orientation

 Stage 2 – Individualism and Exchange

Level 2 – COVENTIONAL MORALITY

 Stage 3 – Good interpersonal Relationships

 Stage 4 – Maintaining the Social Order

Level 3 – POST-CONVENTIONAL MORALITY

 Stage 5 – Social Contract and Individual Rights

 Stage 6 – Universal Principles

Kohlberg’s proposed levels and stages are interpreted and summarized below.
` AGE RANGE
Seen in preschool children,
Level 1: most elementary students,
PRECONVENTIONAL some junior high school
MORALITY students, and a few high
school students.
Seen in a few older
elementary school
students, some junior high
Level 2:
school students, and many
CONVENTIONAL
high school students
MORALITY
(Stage 4 typically does not
appear until the high
school years)
Level 3:
Rarely seen before college
POST
(Stage 6 is extremely rare
CONVENTIONAL
even in adults)
MORALITY
STAGE NATURE OF MORAL REASONING
People make decisions based on what is best
o themselves, without regards for others’
Stage 1:
needs or feelings. They obey rules only if
Punishment-
established by more powerful individuals;
avoidance and
they may disobey if they aren’t likely to get
obedience
caught. “Wrong” behaviors are those that
will punished.
People recognize that others also have
needs. They may try to satisfy others’ needs
Stage 2:
if their own needs are also met (“you my
Exchange of
back, I’ll scratch yours”), they continue to
Favors
define right and wrong primarily in terms of
consequences to themselves.
People make decisions based on what
actions will please others, especially
authority figures and other individuals with
high status (e.g., teacher, popular friend).
Stage 3: Good
They are concerned about maintaining
boy/girl
relationship sharing, trust, and loyalty, and
they take other people’s perspectives and
intentions into account when making
decisions.
People look to society as a whole for
guidelines about right or wrong. They know
rules are necessary for keeping society
Stage 4: Law running smoothly and believe it is their
and Order “duty” to obey them. However, they perceive
rules to be inflexible, they don’t necessarily
recognize that as society’s needs change,
rules should change as well.
People recognize that rule represent
agreement among many individuals about
appropriate behavior. Rules are seen as
potentially useful mechanism that can be
maintain the general social order and protect
Stage 5: Social
individual rights, rather than as absolute
Contract
dictates that must be obeyed simply because
they are “the law”. People also recognize the
flexibility of rules; rules that no longer serve
society’s best interest can and should be
changed.

Prepared by: Jeric D. Carreon, RPm. 3 | P a g e

 ETHICS: Principle of Ethical Behavior in Modern Society

Stage 6 is hypothetical, “ideal” stage that

few people ever reach. People in this stage
adhere to few abstract, universal principles
Stage 6:
(e.g., equality of all people, respect for
Universal
human dignity, commitment to justice) that
ethical
surpass specific norms and rules. They
principle
answer to strong inner conscience and
willingly disobey laws that violate their own
ethical principles.

5. GETTING TO THE HIGHEST LEVEL, CONSCIENCE-BASED MORAL

DECISIONS

Another way to view Kohlberg’s stages, especially when combined with Piaget’s
theory, is as follows:

Stage 1: RESPECT FOR POWER AND PUNISHMENT

A young child (age 1-5) chooses what to do – what is right – according to what
he/she wants to do and can do without getting into trouble. In this level, to be right, one
ought to be obedient to the people in power and, thus, avoid punishment. The motto in
this seems to be: “might make right.”

Stage 2: LOOKING OUT FOR #1

Children (age 5-10) are disposed to be egotistic. They lack respect for others’ right
but may give to others on the assumption that they will get as much or even more in
return. Instead of loyalty, gratitude, or justice, the case is more a matter of “you
scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours.” The motto here seems to be: “What’s in it
for me?”

Stage 3: “GOOD BOY” or “NICE GIRL”

In this stage, people (age 8-16) have shifted from pleasing themselves to pleasing
important others, usually parents, teachers, or friends. They seek approval and thus
conform to someone else’s expectations. When charged of doing something wrong, their
behavior is likely to be justified by stating “everyone else is doing it” or “I didn’t
intend to hurt anyone.” The motto here: “I want to be nice.”

Stage 4: LAW AND ORDER THINKING

Here, the majority people (16 years old and older) have internalized society’s rules
about how to behave. They feel indebted to conform, no longer to just family and
friends, but also to societies law and customs. They realize that it is important to do
one’s duty to maintain social order. Social leaders are assumed to be right and social
rules are adopted without considering the core moral principles involved. Thus, social
control in this stage is exercised through guilt associated with breaking a rule; through
the guilt in this case is an automatic emotional response, not a rational reaction of
conscience based on moral principles. In this stage, individuals believe that everyone
breaking the rules deserves to be punished and “pay his/her debt to society.” The motto
here is: “I’ll do my duty.”

Stage 5: JUSTICE THROUGH DEMOCRACY

Prepared by: Jeric D. Carreon, RPm. 4 | P a g e

 ETHICS: Principle of Ethical Behavior in Modern Society

In this stage, people understand the underlying moral purposes that are supposed to be
served by the laws and social customs. When a law in democracy ceases to serve a good
purpose, they thus feel the people ought to get active and change the law. Understood in
this manner, democracy is seen as social contract whereby everybody tries constantly to
construct a set of laws that best serve most people, while protecting the basic rights of
everybody. Respect for the law and sense of obligation to live by the rules are present, as
long as rules were established in a fair manner and fulfill a moral purpose. It is said that
only about 20-25% of today’s adults ever reach this stage and most of those that do
supposedly only get there after their mid-twenties. The motto here: “I’ll live by rules or
try to change them”.

Stage 6: DECIDING ON BASIC MORAL PRINCIPLES BY WHICH YOU LIVE YOUR

LIFE AND RELATE TO EVERYONE FAIRLY

In this stage, rare people have evaluated many values and have rationally chosen a
philosophy of life that truly guides their life. Morally developed, they do not automatically
conform to tradition or others’ beliefs, and even to their own emotions, intuitions, or
impulsive notion about right and wrong. In stage 6, individuals judiciously elect fundamental
principle to follow, such as caring for and respecting every living thing, feeling that people
are all equal and thus deserve equal opportunities, or, subscribing to the Golden Rule. They
are tough enough to act on their values even if others may think they are odd or if their
belief are against man’s law, such as refusing to fight in a war.

Social control in this stage is exercised through guilt associated with the rational
reaction of conscience based on moral principles. Reaching this stage is thus seen, at least
in Kohlberg and Piaget’s theories. As getting to the highest level, conscience-based moral
decisions.

6. PROBLEM WITH KOHLBERG’S THEORY

It must be noted, that not all ethicists accept Kohlberg’s theory on moral development.
Some argue that these mentioned dilemmas are artificial, that is, they lack ecological
validity. In the Heinz dilemma, for example, Kohlberg’s subjects were aged between 10-16,
have never been married, and so not credible to answer whether or not Heinz should steal
drug.

Some say that Kohlberg’s sample is biased because Kohlberg’s theory was based on an
all-male sample, and thus the stages reflect an androcentric. It is argued that men’s morality
is basically based on abstract principles of law and justice, whereas women’s is based on
principles of compassion and care.

Prepared by: Jeric D. Carreon, RPm. 5 | P a g e