Learning Objectives

 Recall defining moments in their moral formation;

 Explain the relationship between individual acts and character; and
 Identify and articulate each stage of moral development.

When a person is said to have character, it usually implies they have distinguishing moral qualities, moral
virtues, and moral reasoning abilities. Less frequently used terms include morality, virtue, and ethics.
A moral person understands right and wrong and wilfully chooses what is right; a virtuous person engages
in good behaviour intentionally, predictably, and habitually; an ethical person figures out what is right or good when
this is not obvious.
Moral character is an evaluation of an individual’s stable moral qualities. Moral character begins to develop
from birth of a person up to the end of the person’s existence. As human gets older, they will continuously learn and
adapt different traits and characteristics that will prove and attest their morality. It is much easier to develop a
person’s moral character in his early childhood as long as a child is still needed to be educated, guided and
enlightened.
 Confucius is another prominent figure that has been relative to the modern development of a moral
character. Confucius spends many year thinking about the concept to human kindness and the
development of a character. His teachings were basically full of ethics on human behaviour. He spoke more
on the kindness of human rather than spiritual concepts. He argued that things must be clear to one’s mind
in order to function properly in an environment.

COMPONENTS OF MORAL CHARACTER

Moral Behavior Prosocial, sharing, donating to charity, telling the truth

Moral Values Believe in moral goods

Moral Emotion Guilt, empathy, compassion

Moral Reasoning About right and wrong

Moral Identity Morality as an aspect self-image

Moral Personality Enduring tendency to act with honesty, altruism,

responsibility

Metamoral Characteristics meaning they make morality possible

1
 even though they are not inherently moral

Three Philosophers who studied Moral Development:

1. Nicomachean
Ethics is a remarkable work written in 350 B.C by Aristotle. His work was focused on the importance of
development and behavior among virtuous characters. Aristotle clarified the importance of ethical behaviour, and
how actions play a role in which an individual performs. “Eudaimonia,” is relative to how a moral character develops.
It is an end in itself. Aristotle argued that it was known as a goal of a healthy life.
He states “Excellence of Character” then is a state concerned with choice lying in a mean relative to us, this
being determined by reason and in the way which the man depends on excess and that which depend on defect.
A character is a state, whereas, the actions determine the way the person acts. A virtuous character is not a
feeling or mere tendency to behave in a certain way. Aristotle makes an argument about different virtues. Virtues
relate to the feelings and actions from each individual.
2. Confucius is another prominent figure that has been relative to the modern development of a moral character. His
teachings were basically full of ethnics on human behaviors. He spoke more on the kindness of human rather than
spiritual concepts.
Confucius argued that things must be clear to one’s mind in order to function properly in an environment.
Confucius argues that the life of an individual is to protect one’s virtue. The acts of that individual must be preserved
to act to the good. Another saying that substantiate Confucius argument is IV.25 (Eastern), it states, “Virtue is not left
to stand alone. He who practices it will have neighbours.”
3. Lastly, another prominent figure in the world of philosophy is Plato. Plato’s writings such as Apology demonstrate
dramatic accounts of the events leading to his death, as well as illustrating matters of concerns, ethical living, and
clarity of thought and expression.
“Apology” means “legal defense of trial.” Plato offers to discuss about the defense of philosophy as a way of
life. A soul is part of a life, whereas, the soul determines the things we do every day. In Phaedo, Plato argued that the
soul is “something”, rather than a sense of “harmony.” Unlike harmony, the soul exists, which is more active than
others. Souls are more virtuous, which harmony does not pertain to. Soul pre-exists which harmony does not.
To sum it up, Philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle argued that the cognitive and affective states were
important. These philosophers agree that happiness links to virtue. They suggested everyone who is happy is one
who is brave, restraint, and understanding. However, it is difficult to understand. Plato and Aristotle both agree that a
positive moral character involves more than a Socrates’ understanding of the superior. Both agree that it is important
to have harmony between the cognitive and the affective materials from a person.

SIX FACTORS INFLUENCING MORAL DEVELOPMENT

Family- The first influencer on children’s moral development
School- The relationships children develop in schools become critical to their positive development (Skiner, 1964).
The way they feel towards peers, teachers, staffs and leaders at school will affect their moral life.
Peer interaction- Peer interaction and aggression behaviors that children do will affect their moral developments.

2
Society and culture- Moral development prevents people from acting on unchecked urges, instead considering
what is right for society and good for others.
Age- Children develop a sense of morality as they grow.
Sex- The relation of sex, gender and personality, influences moral development.
Based on Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development, American psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg (1927-
1987) developed his own theory of moral development in children. According to Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral
Development, there are 6 stages of moral development, known as Kohlberg’s stages of moral development.
Stages of Moral Development
• Pre conventional
• Conventional
• Post conventional

Critiques of Kohlberg’s Theory

Kohlberg has been criticized for his assertion that women seem to be deficient in their moral reasoning
abilities when compared to men. Carol Gilligan (1982), a research assistant of Kohlberg, criticized her former
mentor’s theory because it was based so narrowly on research using white, upper-class men and boys. She argued
that women are not deficient in their moral reasoning and instead proposed that males and females reason
differently: girls and women focus more on staying connected and maintaining interpersonal relationships.
Kohlberg’s theory has been criticized for emphasizing justice to the exclusion of other values, with the result
that it may not adequately address the arguments of those who value other moral aspects of actions. Similarly, critics
argue that Kohlberg’s stages are culturally biased—that the highest stages in particular reflect a westernized ideal of
justice based on individualistic thought. This is biased against those that live in non-Western societies that place less
emphasis on individualism.

3
 Another criticism of Kohlberg’s theory is that people frequently demonstrate significant inconsistency in their
moral judgements. This often occurs in moral dilemmas involving drinking and driving or business situations where
participants have been shown to reason at a lower developmental stage, typically using more self-interest driven
reasoning (i.e., stage two) than authority and social order obedience driven reasoning (i.e., stage four). Critics argue
that Kohlberg’s theory cannot account for such inconsistencies.
Problems with Kohlberg's Methods
1. The dilemmas are artificial (i.e., they lack ecological validity). Most of the dilemmas are unfamiliar to most people
(Rosen, 1980).
However, Kohlberg’s subjects were aged between 10 and 16. They have never been married, and never
been placed in a situation remotely like the one in the story. How should they know whether Heinz should steal the
drug?
2. The sample is biased.
According to Gilligan (1977), because Kohlberg’s theory was based on an all-male sample, the stages
reflect a male definition of morality (it’s androcentric). Men’s' morality is based on abstract principles of law and
justice, while womens’ is based on principles of compassion and care.
3. The dilemmas are hypothetical (i.e., they are not real)
In a real situation, what course of action a person takes will have real consequences – and sometimes very
unpleasant ones for themselves. Would subjects reason in the same way if they were placed in a real situation? We
just don’t know.
4. Poor research design
The way in which Kohlberg carried out his research when constructing this theory may not have been the
best way to test whether all children follow the same sequence of stage progression. His research was cross-
sectional, meaning that he interviewed children of different ages to see what level of moral development they were at.

A better way to see if all children follow the same order through the stages would have been to carry out
longitudinal research on the same children.
Problems with Kohlberg's Theory
1. Are there distinct stages of moral development?
Kohlberg claims that there are, but the evidence does not always support this conclusion. For example, a
person who justified a decision on the basis of principled reasoning in one situation (post-conventional morality stage
5 or 6) would frequently fall back on conventional reasoning (stage 3 or 4) with another story. In practice, it seems
that reasoning about right and wrong depends more upon the situation than upon general rules.
2. Does moral judgment match moral behavior?
Kohlberg never claimed that there would be a one to one correspondence between thinking and acting
(what we say and what we do) but he does suggest that the two are linked. However, Bee (1994) suggests that we
also need to take account of:
a) Habits that people have developed over time.

4
b) Whether people see situations as demanding their participation.
c) The costs and benefits of behaving in a particular way.
d) Competing motive such as peer pressure, self-interest and so on.

3. Is justice the most fundamental moral principle?

This is Kohlberg’s view. However, Gilligan (1977) suggests that the principle of caring for others is equally
important. Furthermore, Kohlberg claims that the moral reasoning of males has been often in advance of that of
females.