LESSON II

THE MORAL
AGENT
 D e v e l o p i n g Vi r t u e a s H a b i t

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 or she is a
good person and a good citizen with a sound moral compass.
 1 . M o r a l C h a r a c t e r a n d Vi r t u e s

“Moral character”, 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 and incontinence.
Continence means self-restraint.

Aristotle, at the beginning of Book of the Nicomachean Ethics, when we speak of 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 sort of ethically admirable individual he/she is.
 2.The Circular Relation of Acts and Character

In the process of moral development, there is the circular relation between acts that build 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.

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’.
 3.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, ‘disposition’ are particular kinds of properties
or characteristics that objects can possess.

In other words, a good moral character is practically a disposition to do virtuous acts while bad moral
character is a disposition to do vicious deeds.

Among human beings, moral character traits (either virtues or vices) are also considered as dispositions.
 4.Six Stages of Moral Development

The American psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg (1927-1987) is best known for 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 want to develop his ideas further.

Kohlberg pinpointed three distinct levels of moral reasoning each with the 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.
One of Kohlberg’s best known stories concerns a man called Heinz:

Heinz Dilemma
“A woman was on her deathbed. There was one drug that the
doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that
a 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 produce. He paid $200
for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the
drug.
One of Kohlberg’s best known stories concerns a man called Heinz:

Heinz Dilemma
The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he
knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together
about $1,000 which is half of what it 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 and I'm going to make money from it.”
So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's laboratory
to steal the drug for his wife.”
One of Kohlberg’s best known stories concerns a man called Heinz:

Heinz Dilemma
Kohlberg asked a series of questions such as: Should Heinz
have stolen the drug? Would it change anything if Heinz did
not love his wife? What if the person dying was a stranger,
would it make any difference? Should the police arrest the
chemist for murder if the woman died?
Kohlberg’s Six Stages of Moral Development
Stage Stage Stage

1 Obedience and
Punishment Orientation
2 Individualism and
Exchange

Level 1: Pre-conventional morality

3 Good Interpersonal
Relationship

Level 2: Conventional morality

Level 3: Post-conventional morality

Stage Stage Stage

4 Maintaining the
Social Order
5 Social Contract and
Individual Rights
6 Universal
Principles
 Level Age Range Stage Nature of Moral Reasoning
Level I: Seen in preschool children, most Stage 1: Punishment- People make decisions based on what is best for themselves,
Pre-conventional elementary school students, some avoidance and without regard for others’ needs or feelings.
Morality junior highschool students and a obedience
few highschool students
Stage 2: Exchange of People recognize that others also have needs. They may try to
favors satisfy other’s needs if their own needs are also met.

Level II: Seen in a few older elementary Stage 3: Good boy/girl People make decisions based on what actions will please others,
Conventional school students, some junior especially authority figures and other individuals with high
Morality highschool students, and many status
highschool students
Stage 4: Law and Order People look to society as a whole for guidelines about right or
wrong. They know rules are necessary for keeping society
running smoothly and believe it is their “duty” to obey them.
Level III: Rarely seen before college Stage 5: Social People recognize that rules represents agreements among many
Post-conventional Contract individuals about appropriate behavior. Rules are seen as
Morality potentially useful mechanism that can maintain the general
social order and protect individual rights.

Stage 6: Universal Stage 6 is hypothetical, “ideal” stage that few people ever reach.
Ethical Principle People in this stage adhere to a few abstract, universal principles
that transcend specific norms and rules. They answer to a strong
inner conscience and willingly disobey laws that violate their
own ethical principle.
 5.Getting to the Highest Level,
Conscience-Based Moral Decision
Ano t he r w ay t o v i e w K o hl be r g ’s s t a g e s , e s pe c i a l l y whe n c o m bi ne d wi t h P i a g e t’s
t h e o r y, i s a s f o l l o w s :

Stage Stage Stage

1 Respect for power and

punishment

“Might makes right”

2 Looking out for #1

“What’s in it for me?”

3 Being a “Good Boy”
Or “Nice Girl.”

”I want to be nice”

“I’ll do my duty” “I’ll be by the rules”

Stage Stage Stage

4 5 6
Deciding on basic moral
Law and order Justice through principles by which you will
thinking democracy live your life and relate to
everyone fairly
 6 . P r o b l e m s w i t h K o h l b e r g ’s T h e o r y

Not all athicist accepts Kohlberg’s theory on moral development. Some argue that his mentioned
dilemmas are artificial, that is, they lack ecological validity. In the Heinz dilemma, for instance, Kolhberg’s
subjects were aged between 10 and 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 all-male sample,
thus the stages reflect an androcentric or male definition of morality. 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.
 PA RT I I : L E S S O N I

FEELINGS AND
MORAL DECISION-
MAKING
 1. Feelings as Instinctive Response to Moral
Dilemmas

Some ethicist 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.
 2. Feelings as Obstacles to Making the Right
Decision

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.

2.1 Ethical Subjectivism 2.2 Analyzing Ethical Subjectivism

Is the meta-ethical view which claims Suggest that we are to identify our moral

that: Ethical sentences express principles by simply following our feelings. On a
propositions. Some such positive note, it allows us to think for ourselves
propositions are true. The truth or because it implies that we need not agree with
falsity of such propositions is culture or society. Ethically, it makes sense for a
ineliminably dependent on the (actual theory not to ultimately base morality on what
or hypothetical) attitudes of people. society feels or dictates.
 2. Feelings as Obstacles to Making the Right
Decision

2.3 Emotivism 2.4 Evaluating Emotivism

an ethical theory that regards Suggest that in ethical

2.1 Ethical Subjectivism
ethical and value judgments as disputes, we cannot

expressions of feeling or attitude appeal to reason but

only to emotion.
and prescriptions of action, rather
Without a doubt, this
than assertions or reports of
could bring about
anything.
anarchy
 3. Feelings Can Help in Making the Right
Decisions

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.

Feelings or emotions involved in moral thinking should be anchored on careful consideration of a full
range of right goals, including altruistic ones. This consideration ought to mesh with an emotional
instinctive reaction that provides a motivation to act ethically and correct injustices.
THANK
YOU!