ETHICS

Lesson 2 – The Moral Agent

Developing Virtue as Habit
Moral character refers to the existence or lack of virtues such as integrity, courage, fortitude, honesty, and
loyalty. To say that a certain person has a good moral character means that he/she is a good person and a
good citizen with sound moral compass.
Moral Character and Virtues
Character – derived from the Greek word ‘character’ which was initially used as a mark impressed upon a
coin. Later came to mean a distinct mark by which one thing was distinguished from others then chiefly to
mean the assemblage of qualities that distinguish one person from another. In modern usage, the stress on
distinctness or individuality tends to merge ‘character’ with ‘personality.’
According to Aristotle, there are two distinct of human excellences:
1. Excellence of Thought and
2. Excellence of Character (Moral)
Excellence of (moral) character – ethikai aretai is often translated as “moral virtue(s)” and “moral
excellence(s).” The Greek “ethicos” (ethical) is the adjective cognate with “ethos” (character). So when we
speak of a virtue or an excellence of moral character, the highlighting is not on a 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 a condition somewhere in
between virtue and vice, such as continence or incontinence.
The Circular Relation of Acts and Character
In the process of moral development, there is the circular relation between acts that build character and
moral character itself. Not all acts help to build moral character, but those acts which emanate from 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 generates acts that help in developing either virtue or vice. 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 excellences or ‘virtues.’ In the context of developing
morally which also brings about self-realization and happiness, acting in the line with virtues is acting in
accordance with reason.
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 that virtuous traits of character are called
excellences of the human beings. In this sense, the Greeks moralists believe, virtuous acts complete or
perfect human life.

Moral Characters as Dispositions

The moral character traits that constitute a person’s moral character are characteristically understood as
behavioral and affective dispositions. Generally speaking ‘dispositions’ are particular kinds of properties
or characteristics that objects can possess. In the physical world, examples of dispositions include the
elasticity of a rubber band, the solubility of a sugar-cube in water, the fragility of porcelain, and a magnetism
of a lodestone. Among human beings, moral character traits – either virtues or vices – are also considered
as dispositions. Moral character traits are those dispositions of character for which it is suitable to hold
agents morally responsible. A moral character trait for which 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 a negative reactive attitude, such as resentment or blame. In other words, a good
moral character is practically a disposition to do virtuous acts. Oppositely, a bad moral character is, in
effect, a disposition to do vicious deeds.

Six Stages of Moral Development

The American Psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg (1927-1987) is best known for his theory of stages of moral
development. In principle, he agreed with the Swiss clinical psychologist Jean Piaget’s (1896-1980) theory
of moral development but wanted to develop his ideas further. 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 can only pass through these levels in the order listed. Each new stage replaces the kind
of reasoning typical of the previous stage. Some do not achieve all the stages.

Getting to the Highest Level, Conscience-Based Moral Decisions

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 stage seems to be: “Might makes right.”

Stage 2: Looking out for #1

Children (age 6-10) are disposed to be egotistic or self-serving. They lack respect for other’s rights nut 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: Being a “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 of 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 society’s laws and customs.
They realized 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; though 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 anyone breaking the rules deserves to be punished and “pay his/her debt to
society.” The motto here: “I’ll do my duty.”
Stage 5: Justice through democracy
In this stage, people understand he underlying moral purposes that are supposed to be served by 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 a social contact whereby
everybody tries constantly to construct a set of laws that best serves most people, while protecting the basic
right of everybody. Respect for the law and a sense of 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 the rules or try to change them.”

Stage 6: Deciding on basic moral principles by which you will 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, intuition, or impulsive notions about right and wrong. In stage 6,
individuals judiciously elect fundamental principles 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 beliefs
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 seem, at least in Kohlberg and Piaget’s theories, as
getting to the highest level, conscience-based moral decisions.
Part II: The Act
Lesson I: Feelings and Moral Decision-Making

There are at least two theories in ethics that give focus on the role of feelings on morality. They are (1)
Ethical Subjectivism and (2) Emotivism. But before discussing and analyzing these two theories, let us deal
first with the view that feelings are instinctive and trained response to moral dilemmas.

1. Feelings as Instinctive Response to Moral Dilemmas

Some ethicists believe that ethics is also a matter of emotion. They hold that moral judgments at their best
should also be emotional. Feelings are seen as also necessary in ethical judgment as they are even deemed
by some as instinctive and trained response to moral dilemmas.
Some hold that reason and emotion are not really opposites. Both abstract inference and emotional intuitions
or instincts are seen as having relative roles in ethical thinking. For one thing, feelings or emotions are said
to be judgments about the accomplishment of one’s goals. Emotions, it is thus concluded, can be rational
in being based at least sometimes on good judgments about how well a circumstance or agent accomplishes
appropriate objectives. Feelings are also visceral or instinctual by providing motivations to act morally.
Many times, ethical judgments are highly emotional as people emotionally express their strong approval or
disapproval of different acts. Moral sentiments highlight the need for morality to be based also on sympathy
for other people. Many ethicists conclude that being good involves both thinking and feeling.
2. Feelings as Obstacles to Making the Right Decisions
Feelings and emotions, however, can become obstacles or impediments to becoming ethical. This is the
case especially when feelings’ roles in ethics are misinterpreted or exaggerated.
The two famous (but erroneous) feeling-based theories in Ethics.
Ethical Subjectivism. This theory basically utterly runs contrary to the principle that there is objectivity in
morality. Fundamentally a meta-ethical theory, Ethical Subjectivism is not about what things are good and
what things are bad. It also does not tell how we should live or what moral norms we should practice.
Instead, it is a theory about the nature of moral judgments.
Although it admits that moral judgments are ‘truth bearers,’ Ethical Subjectivism holds that the truth or
falsity of ethical propositions is dependent on the feelings, attitudes, or standards, of a person or group of
persons. Contrary to the beliefs that morality is about objective facts, this theory states that moral judgments
simply describe our personal feelings.
For every controversial ethical topic, say homosexuality or abortion, we usually hear at least two opposing
views concerning the matter. One camp which declares that the action as immoral may express its stand by
saying that God hates it, or that it is unethical, or that doers of the action must be punished by the
government. On the other hand, the rival group may claim that the action is perfectly normal and
practitioners must be tolerated, if not respected. But there is a third stance – another group might say that
people in the first two groups are expressing their respective opinion, but where morality is concerned, there
are no objective facts and no position is objectively right. This third stance represents Ethical Subjectivism.
It submits that our moral opinions are based on our feelings, and nothing more.
In Ethical Subjectivism, it is a fact that some people are homosexual and some are heterosexual; but it is
not a fact that one is really good and the other, bad. So when someone says that homosexuality is wrong,
he is, according to the theory, not stating a fact about homosexuality but merely saying something about
his feelings towards it. Subjectivism hold that there is no such thing as objective right or real wrong.
Analyzing Ethical Subjectivism. Ethical Subjectivism suggests that we are to identify our moral principles
by simply following our feelings. On a positive note, it allows us to think for ourselves because it implies
that we need not agree with culture or society. Ethically, it makes sense for a theory not to ultimately base
morality on what society feels or dictates. We believe that the moral judgments we make are not mere
expressions of our personal feelings in our sincere moral judgments, we claim that the stance we choose
does represents the ‘truth.’
Emotivism. One way to look at Emotivism is to view it as an improved version of Subjectivism. Considered
by its proponents as far more subtle and sophisticated than Subjectivism, Emotivism is deemed invulnerable
to many objections. This Theory that was developed chiefly by the American philosopher Charles L.
Stevenson has been one of the most influential theories of Ethics in the 20th century. The theory basically
states that moral judgments express positive or negative feelings. “X is right!” merely means “Hooray for
X!” – and X is immoral” just means “Boo on X!” Since ethical judgments are essentially commands and
exclamations, they are not true or false, so there cannot be moral truths and moral knowledge. Emotivism
is actually the most popular form of non-cognitivism, the meta-ethical theory that claims that ethical
sentences do not convey authentic propositions. Moral judgments, according to emotivism, are not
statements of fact but are mere expressions of the emotions of the speaker, especially since they are usually
feeling-based. In denying moral truths and moral knowledge, some emotivists base their stance on logical
positivism, which claims that any legitimate truth claim must be empirically verifiable. It is held that since
moral judgments cannot be tested by sense experience, they cannot be authentic truth claims but can only
express feelings.
Feelings Can Help in Making the Right Decisions
The discussions on Ethical Subjectivism and Emotivism should not be construed, however, as completely
removing people’s feeling, taste, emotion, liking , and the like in the sphere of morality. Admittedly, there
are situations in which our feelings and likings are relevant to the rightness of our decisions and actions. In
selecting a course to take, a job to assume, and especially a person to marry, we wonder how one’s decision
can be really right without at least considering our feeling, taste, and preference. Moreover, ethics-without-
feeling also appears to go against Christian philosophy’s emphasis on love, for love is basically a strong
liking, desire, or emotion. Applied religiously, exclusing feelings in moral living seems to go against the
biblical decree to worship and serve God with a joyful heart or feeling. Emotions, like our love for our
friends and family, are a crucial part of what gives life meaning, and ought to play a guiding role in morality.
Reason and Impartiality as Minimum Requirement for Morality
Genuine moral or value judgments ought to be backed by pertinent reasons. Moreover, they must possess
the quality of impartiality, which means, among other things that personal feelings or inclinations should
be suppressed if necessary.
Reason and Impartiality Defined
Humans have not only feelings but also reason, and reason plays a vital role in Ethics. In fact, moral
truths are truths of reason, that is, a moral judgment is true if it is espoused by better reasons than the
alternatives. At least in Philosophy, reason is the basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction. As
a quality, it refers to the capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; for consciously making sense
and logic, and justifying and if necessary, changing practices, institutions, and beliefs based on existing or
new existing information. But in the case of moral judgments, they require backing by reasons. In absence
of sensible rationale, they are merely capricious and ignorable. Moral deliberation is a matter of weighing
reasons and being guided by them. In understanding the nature of morality, considering reasons is
indispensable. Truth in Ethics entails being justified by good reasons. That is, the rightful moral decision
involves selecting te option that has the power of reason on its side.
Impartiality, on the other hand, involves the idea that each individual’s interest and points of view are
equally important. Also called evenhandedness or fair-mindedness, impartiality is a principle of justice
holding that decisions ought to be based on objective criteria, rather than on the basis of bias, prejudice,
or preferring the benefit to one person over another for improper reasons. Impartiality in morality requires
that we give equal and /or adequate considerations to the interest of all concerned parties. The principle of
impartiality assumes that every person, generally speaking, is equally important; that is, no one is seen as
intrinsically more significant than anyone else. From the impartial standpoint, to say that no one is seen as
intrinsically more significant than anyone else, is not to say that there is no reason whatsoever for which
an individual might demand more moral attention or better treatment than others. Many ethicists suppose
that from the impartial point of view, properly conceived, some persons count as more significant, at least
in a certain ways. For example: A virtuous and respectable religious leader may be supposed to be more
significant than a mere maid, so in an emergency like a building on fire, the decent religious leader ought
to be rescued first. The reason, nonetheless, is not that religious leader is intrinsically more significant,
rather, it is that he makes greater contributions to society.
The 7-Step Moral Reasoning Model
Contemporary author Scott B. Rae, Ph.D. proposes a model for making ethical decisions. His suggested
7-step model introduces the use of reason and impartiality in deciding on moral matters.
The Steps or Elements for Making Moral Decisions
1. Gathers the Facts. Some moral dilemmas can be resolved just by clarifying the facts of the case
in question. In more complex cases, gathering the facts is the indispensable first step prior to any
ethical analysis and reflection on the case. In examining the case, we want to know the available
facts at hand, as well as any facts presently not known but that need to be determined. Don’t jump
to conclusions without the facts. We have to ask not only “what do we know/” but also “what do
we need to know?’ in order to generate an intelligent ethical decision.
2. Determine the Ethical issues. The moral issues should be correctly stated in terms of competing
interests. It is these conflicting interests that practically make for a moral dilemma. Moral values
and virtues must support the competing interests in order for an ethical dilemma to exist. If you
cannot identify the underlying values/virtues then you do not have an ethical dilemma.
3. Identify the principles that have a Bearing on the Case. What principles have a bearing on the
case? In any moral dilemma, there are sure moral values or principles that are vital to the rival
positions being taken. It is very significant to recognize these principles, and in some cases to decide
whether some principles are to be weighted more heavily than others.
4. List the Alternatives. Creatively determine possible courses of action for your dilemma. Some
will almost immediately be discarded but generally the more you list the greater potential for
coming up with a really good one. It will also help you come up with a broader selection of ideas.
5. Compare the alternatives with Principles. This steps involves eliminating alternatives according
to the moral principles that have a bearing on the case. The purpose of this comparison is to
determine whether there is a clear decision that can be made without further deliberation.
6. Weigh the Consequences. If the principles do not produce a clear decision, then a consideration
of the consequences of the remaining available alternatives is in order. Both negative and positive
are to be considered. Estimate how beneficial each positive and negative consequences, some might
have greater weight than others.
7. Make a Decision. It must be realized that one common element to moral dilemma is that there is
no easy and painless solutions to them. Normally, the decision that is made is one that possesses
the least number of problems or negative consequences, not one that is devoid of them.

Moral Courage
In this modern world, we tend to emphasize or give importance on emotions over reason when
considering moral decisions. But to many ethicists, reason is also not enough in carrying out moral
decisions. Moral courage is also important.

The Importance of Will and Moral Courage

A good rational moral decision is not always executed. It is one thing to know a good moral act,
and it is another thing to actually execute it. Oftentimes, what is lacking is the moral courage, which
necessarily involves the concept of will. In morality therefore, will is essential just as reason is
significant.
Moral Courage means doing the right thing even at the risk of inconvenience, ridicule,
punishment, loss of job or security or social status, etc. Moral courage requires that we rise above
the apathy, complacency, hatred, cynicism, and fear-mongering in our political systems,
socioeconomic divisions and cultural/religious differences.
One sense of the concept ‘will’ refers to that faculty of the mind which chooses, at the moment of
making decision, the strongest desire from among the various desires present. “Will” does not refer
to any particular desire, but rather to the capacity to act decisively on one’s desires. Within
philosophy the will is important as one of the distinct parts of the mind, along with reason and
understanding. It is considered important in ethics because of its central role in enabling a person
to act deliberately (“Desire,” n.d.), Commonly, we think of will in the active sense, of self-control,
of working toward and attaining goals.
The German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer explained that when we become conscious of
ourselves, we recognize that our essential qualities are endless urging, craving, striving, wanting,
and desiring. He said that these sense are features of that which we call our will. According to him,
will is the innermost essence, the kernel, of every particular thing and also of the whole. It appears
in every blindly acting force of nature, and also in the deliberate conduct of man. He believed that
the will is primary and uses knowledge in order to find an object that will satisfy its craving.
Will Power refers to the inner strength to make a decision, take action, and handle and execute any
aim or task until it is accomplished, regardless of inner and outer resistance, discomfort or
difficulties. It bestows the ability to overcome laziness, temptations and negative habits, and to
carry out actions, even if they require effort are unpleasant and tedious or are contrary to one’s
habits. Having moral courage and will means doing the right thing which may include listening to
our conscience, that quiet voice within. Disregarding the voice may lead to feelings of inadequacy,
guilt, and diminished personal integrity. Moral courage demands us to make judgments about what
behaviors or acts are supportive of our ethical ideologies or highest ideals, and which ones are
destructive. Moral courage and will require us to recognize our responsibilities and be accountable
to the consequences of our own actions.

Developing Will and Moral Courage

Tips or suggestions on how to develop will and moral courage:
a. Develop and practice self-discipline. This involves the rejection of instant gratification in
favor of something better. Ethically applied, it may refer to the giving up of on instant pleasure
and satisfaction for a higher and better goal such as executing good rational decision.
Developing will and moral courage involves developing self-control which includes nurturing
the ability to stick to actions, thoughts, and behavior, that lead to moral improvement and
success; it encompasses endowing the inner strength to focus all the energy on a moral goal
and persevere until it is accomplished.
b. Do mental strength training. One of the most simple and effective methods under this mental
strength training involves declining to satisfy unimportant and unnecessary desires. By
practicing to refuse to gratify every one of them, a person gets courageous and stronger. Say
no to useless, harmful or unnecessary desires and deeds, and behaving contrary to one’s (bad)
habits, fortify and refine a person’s mindset. By persistent practice, one’s inner power grows,
in the same way working out one’s muscles at a gym increases one’s physical strength. In both
cases, when a person needs inner power or physical strength, they are available at his/her
disposal.
c. Draw inspiration from people. People usually admire and respect courageous persons who
have won great success by manifesting self-discipline and will power. These include people in
all walks of life, who with sheer will power and moral courage, overcame difficulties and
hardships, have improved their moral life, advanced on the spiritual or moral path, and became
worthy of imitation.
Outstanding examples of moral courage whom we rightly celebrate:
 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.,
 Mahatma Gandhi,
  Aung San Suu Kyi, and especially
 Jesus Christ and His apostles. When we see individuals put their comfort, safety,
security, reputation, or even life on the line for a cause they believe in, or for an ideal
that matters more than personal wellbeing, we witness moral courage and will in
action.
d. Repeatedly do acts that exhibit moral courage and will. Practice makes perfect. If one
wishes to nurture the moral courage and will in him, he must strive doing the acts that manifest
them whenever opportunity allows it. The following are some examples (“Moral Courage,”
n.d.):
 helping someone push a car (e.g. out of a snow bank), even if it means being late
 standing up to a bully on the playground
 picking up litter
 doing homework or chores without being reminded
 refusing to listen to or repeat gossip
 practicing what you preach, even when no-one is looking or knows
 turning in a toy or a wallet to the Lost and Found
e. Avoid deeds that show lack of moral courage and will.
This involves evading acts that show irresponsibility, cowardice, apathy, rashness, imprudence,
ill will, and wickedness. Here are some examples (“Moral Courage,” n.d.):
 walking away from someone in need
 taking more than your fair share
 laughing at someone's misfortune or accident
 grabbing the spotlight from someone who has earned it
 placing too much reliance on the letter rather than the spirit of the law