ETHICS DEFINED

MODULE 2

THE FOUNDATION OF MORALITY

THE MORAL AGENT

This module will address the following questions:

How does culture shape moral behavior?
Why should culture not be the ultimate determinant of values?
Is there a Filipino understanding of right and wrong? Why this interpretation? What
are its influences?

A. Culture in moral behavior

1.Culture and its role in moral behavior
2.What is cultural relativism? Why is it not tenable in ethics?
3.Are there an Asian and a Filipino understanding of moral behavior Strengths
and weaknesses?
B. The moral agent: Developing virtue as habit
1.How is a moral character developed? The circular relation of acts that
build character and acts that emanate from character
2. Moral development
a.The stages of moral development
b.How do we get to the highest level, conscience-based moral decisions?

Activity
1. Form three groups in class.
2. Read, discuss and analyzed the Case of Ruben.
3. Present your answer in the class

Case of Ruben:

Ruben is a graduating student who is taking up a philosophy subject as one of the

final requirements for a graduation. Because philosophy is only a minor subject, he
deliberately took his philosophy class for granted and he started failing to attend regular
classes. Due to his many absences, he failed to take exams and quizzes; hence, at the end
of the semester, he received a failing grade of 5, Because of the failing grade, he will not
be able to join he graduation and, therefore, he will not be able to start looking for a job
and help his parents and his younger siblings to school.
Ruben talked to his philosophy teacher to consider giving him a passing grade because he
needs to graduate. He told his teacher that he has to be considerate to his family and that
if he will not be able to graduate, he is afraid that his parents will not able to afford
enrolling him on the next school year. For that matter, he will not be able to land a good
job because he lacks the credential to be able to get a better job.
Should the teacher consider giving Ruben a passing grade or should he be given a failing
grade as this is what is fair for all his classmate who worked hard in order to get a passing
grade?

The Moral Agent

The morality of one’s action will be based on the morality of the agent acting in a
particular situation. An action can be considered moral or immoral depending on the
decision of person acting on it. For instance, one’s action may be considered morally
acceptable while that same action can be considered morally unacceptable to the other .
There are also cases when a particular situation will produce two results: one good and
one evil. But not to do any action on the said situation will produce evil effect. This
situation is what is called a dilemma.

The dilemma, comes from the two Greek words dis, which mean twice, and lemma,
which means assumption or premise. From the point of view of logic, a dilemma is form of
argument that is composed of a conjunction of two conditional hypothetical statements as
its major premise. This type of major premise will serve as the horns of the dilemma. Its
minor premise is a disjunction of the antecedent of the hypothetical statements in the
major premise, while its conclusion is a disjunction of the consequence of the conditional
hypothetical idea in the name major premise. The minor premise will show that whichever
alternative the opponent chooses will be against him.
The question here would be, how should a human person handle a dilemma? How he
makes his decision on a dilemma will become the basis of how he is living his life. In the
example given above, the teacher is placed in a dilemma to give Ruben a failing score in
order to give justice to the classmates who worked hard in order to receive a passing
grade but disrobing him the opportunity to work and earn in order to provide financial
support to his family or to give a passing grade to Ruben so he can provide for his family
at the soonest possible time but this will definitely be unfair to Ruben’s classmate. Here,
the decision of the person placed in this dilemma will depend on the person’s moral
perspective.

A person will realize that he placed in a dilemma when he is being bothered by the
situations. Any person will only be bothered because he feels that there is a problem that
needs to be given a solution. Here is where ethics should come at the forefront. The
study of ethics should not be focus only on a mere acquisition of knowledge but on how to
apply such knowledge in everyday life. In the case of given above, it is not really
important whether one has good perspective as regards what is the moral decision to
make in Ruben’s case. What is important is the action to make in the situation. This is
where wisdom is coming in. A person will be considered full of wisdom if he knows how to
apply his knowledge on a situation where there is a dilemma. Hence, a man of wisdom is
the one who knows when to make a moral decision and when to act on a situation. He can
make a distinction between moral standards.
A moral standard is that which deals with matters that may seriously injure or may
greatly benefit human beings. If there are situations that will be beneficial to more
people, then the action will be considered morally good. However, if it will cause greater
pain to more people, then it is considered to be morally evil. The basis of morality,
therefore is the pleasure and pain that an action may cause to the others. For this reason,
the validity of moral standards will be based on the justification of one’s action. Hence, an
action is considered to be morally acceptable not because it is acceptable by the majority
but on the goodness that such action would entail to other people. In as much as the rule
of majority does not apply to moral standards, moral standards should therefore, be
preferred to other values, including self-interest. As a moral, agent a human person must
be able to discern right from wrong and be held accountable for his own action. He can be
held accountable for the good and the bad effect of his action to other people. However,
such accountability will still depend on the moral formation and the cultural beliefs and
practices that the person has. The basis of morality is therefor, biased to one’s culture and
moral behavior. Such cultural and moral behavior will affect one’s decision as regards the
practicality and the morality of the act. Nevertheless, practically and morality do not
always go together. Let us consider the example of James Rachels and Stuart Rachels on
the book. The Elements of Moral Philosophy (2003, 1-2): Therese Ann Campo Pearson, an
infant known to the public as “ Baby Therese” was born in Florida in 1992. Baby Theresa
had anencephaly, one of the worst genetic disorders. Anencephalic infants are sometimes
referred to as “babies without brains,” and this given roughly the right picture, but is not
quite accurate. Important parts of the brain – the cerebrum and cerebellum – are missing,
as is the top skull. There is however, a brain stem and so automatic functions such
breathing and heartbeat are possible. In the United States, most cases of anencephaly,
and are detected during pregnancy, and the fetuses are usually aborted. Of those not
aborted, half are still born. About 350 are born alive each year, and they usually die within
the days.

Baby Theresa’s story is remarkable only her parents made an unusual request.
Knowing that their baby would die soon and could ever be conscious, Theresa’s parents
volunteer her organs for transplant. They thought her kidneys, liver, heart, lungs and eyes
should go to other children who could benefit from them. Her physicians agreed.
Thousands of infants need transplant each year, and there are never enough organs
available. But the organs were not taken because Florida law forbids the removal of
organs until donor is dead. By the time Baby Theresa died nine days later, it was too late
for the other children-her organs had deteriorated too much to be harvested and
transplanted. Baby Theresa’s case was widely debated. Should she have killed so that her
organs could have been used to save other children? A number of professional “ethicists”
– people employed by universities, hospitals, and law school, who get paid to think about
such things- were asked by the press to comment. Surprisingly, few of them agreed with
the parents and physicians. Instead, they appealed to time honored philosophical
principles to oppose taking organs.
It just seems too horrifying to use people as means to other people’s ends.” Said one such
expert. Another explained: “It’s unethical to kill person A to save person B”, And a third
added: What the parents are really asking for is, kill this dying baby so that its organ may
be used for someone else. Well, that’s really a horrendous proposition.” Is it horrendous?
Opinions were divided. “These ethicists thought so, while the parent’s ad doctors did not.
What reason or arguments can be given for each side? What can be said to justify the
parents request or to justify thinking the request was wrong?
From the situations given, moralist will have different opinions as regards what
ethical principles can be used in order to make a moral decision. There can be two
different opinions that can come out: Is the parent’s request, morally justifiable? Well,
Christian moralist will also have different opinions. One group will say that God’s
commandments should be taken as the basis in making moral decision. God commanded
the people not to kill. In this regard, taking organs from Baby Theresa’s life. Even if the
end in view, which is donating the organs to those who are in great need, is morally good.
Christian ethics will still believe that “the end does not justify the mean”

Nevertheless, there are still some Christians who would have a different opinion. They
believe that it would be uncharitable if they will allow Baby Theresa to live in such a
pitiable state. To have her live for several days more would already be a torture. To this
one can add that if the organs of the baby would be given to other babies, there would be
others who would survive. In such a case, the greatest number principle, which states that
an action is considered to be good if it is for the sake of upholding the happiness of the
greatest number, can be applied. A more practical point of view can be consideration.
Considering that the medical situation of Baby Theresa had probably incurred great
financial burden to the family, especially to the other children, supposing that Baby
Theresa had other sibling, selling the organs of Baby Theresa would at least help the
family to overcome even for a little amount their financial distress. In this regard, the
decision of the parents to donate or sell the organs of Baby Theresa would not be
considered horrendous. Inasmuch as the situations given above would incur different
ethical views, it is quite important to determine which among these ethical views can be
morally sound. It is, therefore, important that a moral agent must have a good standard in
morally so as to make a sound moral decision. As to the soundness of a moral decision,
one’s view would depend on his culture and his own moral behavior? Should culture be
the ultimate determinant of values?

Cultural and Moral Behavior

The question as to whether a culture contributes to the moral upbringing of a person

or not is not anymore debatable. However, the question now may be whether these norms
and values of a particular community where a person is a member of can make a person
morally upright. There is different source that might influence the way a person behaves
morally. These include our family, the community we belong, the religion we practice, our
school, and even the virtual world we see- the social media. These factors may, in one
way or another, affect our behavior as a moral person. Modern people are now being
exposed to different cultural sources like family, communities, school, work place, and
religion.
Filipinos, general, spend most of their time with this groups. Their families taught
them the practice of pagmamano as a way of asking for a blessing of the elders and the
elder ‘s way of invoking the aid of the holy Spirit to descend upon the person asking for
the blessing. Hence respect for the elders is given great importance. Most of the formative
years of a Filipino are spent with their families, who have unique values and norms, which
have been influenced by the community they belong. The same is true to an individual as
he enters school. Aside from the family, the community also has a great influence in one’s
moral upbringing. Another significant source of influence is the pop culture or the popular
culture. These include the mainstream media, social media, movies, fads. What media has
shown to the people is commonly within the moral standards of Filipinos. However, when
Filipinos began viewing shows from other countries with different culture , moral
perspective of the Filipinos is becoming influenced by the different moral beliefs of other
countries. For this reason, Filipinos will definitely have a different moral perspective and it
is thereby difficult to come up with a Filipino morality. It can be noted that there are
multiple sources of values and norms. However, these values my come into conflict with
one another. Some behaviors that have been practiced at home may not be accepted in
the community or in school.

The question now, therefore, is where to ground culture and morality. Religious
moralist would probably say that moral values should be grounded on God and the Law of
God must be the standard of morality. On the other hand, other scholars of morality may
suggest that morality develops as a result of natural selection. Because of this, we may
now ask? Is there a possibility to have a universal moral principle, i.e.., a moral principle
that will be binding to all people, in all places and at all t for? he times? Most of the time,
morality based on the question whether the action is moral? It is right? It is good? It is
legal? From these questions, Paul Ricoeur could have been correct in asking the question:
‘Is it really the good that we are aspiring for?

Cultural Relativism

Cultural Relativism is the view that ethical and cultural beliefs vary from one
culture to another. It also upheld the idea that system are all equal in validity and of
relevance It comes from the idea that moral standards are product of society. This
philosophical principle started from the Greek philosopher Protagoras of Abdera (490-420
BCE). Protagoras is known primarily for the three claims: (1) that man is the measures of
all things, of the things that are they are not that they are not, (2) that he could make the
worse argument appear better or the weaker argument appear to be stronger, and (3)
that one could not tell if the goals existed or not. According to Protagoras, knowledge is
limited to the person’s various perceptions. But such perception will differ with each
person. Protagoras believed that man’s knowledge is measured by what he perceives and
if is something about each of them that makes perceived in different ways, there is no
standard for testing whether one person’s perception is right and another person’s
perception is wrong. This is nonetheless, tantamount to saying that everything is true.
Inasmuch as knowledge is relative to each person. Moral judgment, consequently,
are also relative. One’s own conception of goodness may be different from the other’s
conception of goodness. Law and moral rules. Therefore, are based no one can say that
these laws by which we can judge whether such laws are true and others are wrong. This
ethical principle is otherwise known as moral relativism . Nevertheless, Protagoras did not
say that every individual could decide on what is moral. Instead, he took the conservative
position that the state makes the laws and that these laws should be accepted by
everyone because they are as good as any that can be made. Hence, in the interest of a
peaceful and orderly society, people should respect and uphold the customs, laws, and
moral rules, which their tradition has carefully nurtured. In this case, Protagoras believed
that young should be educated to accept and support the tradition of their society, not
because this tradition is true but because it makes possible as stable society.

The Doctrine of Ethical Relativism

In the ethical problems, Protagoras maintained that moral judgments are relative.
He believed that laws and moral rules are based, not upon nature, but upon convention.
From this idea arises the ethical relativism, which also known as moral relativism.
The moral relativists went on with the idea of Protagoras by saying that there are no
universal or absolute moral principle. Standards of right and wrong are always relative to
a particular culture or society. (Timbreza 1993, 18). Given that there is, in fact, a plurality
of social groups, with different mores, the moral relativist argues that there exists no
point from which these norms can be upheld, no universal or absolute criteria by which
they can be criticized. To the moral relativist, one will be considered too ambitious- if not
too arrogant – in claiming that one knows absolute and objective ethical principles that
are true, valid, and binding on all peoples. In order to understand ethical relativism, let us
take as an example the case of the Arctic Eskimos. For them, the practice of letting their
wife sleep with a special guest for a night is considered as an expression of hospitality and
respect. Also, the Arctic Eskimos had the practice of leaving their old folk in the snow and
allowed them to die of starvation and this was considered as morally legitimate. Of
course, for the Filipinos, such practices are considered immoral.
On the other hand, for the Jews, it was a moral obligation to marry his brother’s
widow while in some African cultures, to kill twins at birth is morally just and right. In our
modern context, there are other states in America that grants legitimacy to abortion, while
there are other states that consider abortion to be morally illegitimate. From these
examples, moral relativist would have claim that whether an action is regard right or
wrong depends upon the society judging it. They claim that the different sets of moral
principle are of equal worth and nobody can claim that their moral beliefs and culture is
better than that of the others.

The Filipino Morality

The opposite of ethical relativism is ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism is the view

that one particular ethnic group is somehow superior to all others. The word
ethnocentrism is derived from the Greek word eqnoc (ethos), meaning “nation” or
“people,” and from the English word center . Ethnocentrism is the view that a particular
ethnic group’s system of beliefs and values is morally superior to all others
(www.allaboutphilosophy.org ). Aside from ethical relativism and ethnocentrism, there is
also another alternative to the philosophy spectrum: the Theocentrism. The word is
derived from the Greek word (Theo’s).meaning “God” or “gods,” and the English word
center . Theocentrism is the view that God’s system of beliefs and values is morally
superior to all others. The followers of theocentrism believe that God’s law is the absolute
standard by which we are to judge everyone else’s system of beliefs and values
(www.allaboutphilosphy.org ). Both theocetrism and ethnocentrism upheld the idea that
there is an absolute value system. In this, regard, both of them contradict cultural
relativism because the latter denies universal moral standard. However, theocentrism is
God-centered, whereas ethnocentrism is man-centered.
It is common for every people to consider their culture as the best culture and their
moral beliefs as the highest moral considerations. Filipinos are not different. They believe
that the Filipino culture is the best culture because it is centered on God and it upholds
the dignity of the nation. Filipinos of today would consider the event during the Edsa
Revolution on February 25, 1986, as primary consideration for saying that the Filipino
culture is superior. The Filipino’s way of ousting dictator without bloodshed became truly
remarkable and was considered by other nations as worthy of emulation. This event had
shown the world that the Filipinos did not only oust a dictator but also demonstrated to
the world the strength of the Filipinos as people. However, after more than three decades,
the Filipino realize that most their problems as a nation still remain.
Today, Filipinos are confronted with the lack of discipline and rigor. Despite the
displayed of people’s power, Filipinos have eventually become passive. The Filipino
populace would generally expect their leaders to take all responsibility for solving the
problems that are hunting the nation. For this reason, people are already having difficulty
identifying the demarcation line between the “what is” and” what ought to be” Fr.
Vitaliano Gorospe believed that the problem in the morality of the Filipino is the
consideration of the actual and the prevailing norms of right and wrong among Filipinos.
The belief that the law of God. Is the highest moral principle and the Filipino society is the
greatest among cultures, a conflict between what they say as Christian and what they do
as Filipinos arose. For this reason, it becomes difficult as Christian appears to be different
from the way they live as a Filipino. Can the Filipino values be considered now as a
foundation for morality? Can it be used as a means in order to build a nation?
According to Edmund Burke (1729-1797). “the only thing necessary for the
triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Burke believed in the recognition of
collective reason that has built up over time as opposed to the sudden reliance on
individual reason, which by itself could be faulty. He believed that the noble and the
worthy within a society will be placed in great danger if the constitution of the moral order
would be resting upon the unrestrained criticism of every individual (Bogle 2010). The
problem with the Filipinos today is that they do not only condition themselves to NOT act
against evil. They also conditioned themselves to NOT care about the problem and
conditions of the society when they are already starting at them in the face. And now we
ask the question: how can a one proud and honorable people, who were once lauded for
their conviction in fighting against corrupt and standing firm on their moral beliefs become
or are becoming identified as one of the most corrupt people in the world? How can a
nation that once was one of the most progressive nations of the Southeast Asia become
lagging in terms of economy, politics, and moral?
It is important to note that Philippines is home to both religious and non-religious
people, as well as those who are in between. However, most of the Filipinos are already
having difficulty knowing the difference between good and evil nor are they willing to take
a stand in matters that involve morality. People are not anymore resorting to the religious
people in moral matters and the government is trying itself to believe that they have the
higher authority even in matters of morals. And so, contemplative Filipinos would have the
understanding that since the peoples’ concept of the good is corrupted, it is becoming
difficult to bring back the glory lost. Because of this, the question now will be: What do
we do now? Some Filipinos may still have an understanding of what is good is. But this
idea of good must be placed into action. Taking action is important if we want to put a
decisive end to evil and corruption. However, taking necessary action be messy and if it
will not be taken serious consequences (GRP Newsletter).
On the other hand, it is important to note and review the Filipino character and
eventually this positive character can be used as basis of moral decision.

Strength of the Filipino Character

The following are the said to be the strength of Filipinos:

1. A typical Filipino has a high regard for others. This is better known as pakikipagkapwa
tao. Filipinos have a basic sense of justice and fairness and a strong sense of concern
for others. They have a well-develop sensitivity to people’s feeling. They also have a
good sense of gratitude; thereby, leading to the development of a good interpersonal
relations. When practiced by everyone, this can be a good foundation for unity among
Filipino

2. Filipinos have a strong sense of family orientation . The Filipinos consider the family as
the source of Filipino identity. They also consider the family as the source of personal
identity, the source of emotional and material support, as well as the source as to
where commitment and responsibility are learned.

3. Filipinos have also different sense and perception of joy and humor . Filipinos have a
cheerful and fun-loving approach to life. Because of the ability of man to laugh at their
own troubles, they were able to develop a very important coping mechanism.

4. Filipinos are also said to be flexible, adaptable, and creative. They have a great
capacity to adjust to different situations and to adapt to different circumstances so that
no matter how great the disaster that happen, a Filipino can easily rise up again and
cope up once more to life’s complexities.

5. A typical Filipino is also known for his hard work and his industriousness . This is
brought about by their desire to improve their lives and that of their family as well as
their desire to obtain a more decent and, if possible, a more luxurious life. Such desire
brought about the Filipino to work very hard.

6. Even before the coming of the Spaniards, Filipino are already considered as very
religious. Their religiosity was only purified and probably improved by the Spanish
friars. Because of this religiosity, the Filipino will accept his fate and destiny as part of
the will of God. He has the belief that God has a plan for everyone so much so that
tragedies and disaster in life are even considered as part of the plan of God. Hence,
whatever happens in his life, he will consider it as will of God and will still produce a
good result in the end. From this, Filipino were able to develop the value of bahalana,
which actually means entrusting one’s fate to God and that whichever may happen,
Bathala na, which mean, submitting everything to God whom they call Bathalang
Maykapal.
7. Filipinos were able to develop patience and they are capable of making use of whatever is
available in the environment. Hence, they have a great ability to survive (Aguilar, 2012).

The Development of Moral Character

The judgment regarding the morality of an action is based on the person who did the
action. This was basically the belief of Plato, Aristotle, Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.
The goodness of an action can be based on the kind of person who did the action: from the
intention of doing an act: from the character of the moral agent. In order to determine the kind
of person one is, one should base himself on the character that one person possesses.
Etymologically, Character comes from the Greek term character, which initially referred
to the mark impressed upon a coin. Such mark determined the value of the coin. Consequently,
a person’s value will be determined by the character that a person possesses. A person’s
character is the mental and moral character that one possesses which makes him different from
the others. In philosophy, the person’s character refers to the moral aspects of the person.
In order to give more light to character, Aristotle often used the term(ethe) in order to
his idea of character. His idea of character is etymologically linked to “ethics” and “morality”
Aristotle’s concept of morality is concerned with the concept of arête, which Aristotle translated
as excellence. To make the person moral, his action must be an act done in the most excellent
way. For this reason, the Aristotelian concept of excellence is associated with function. A human
person is considered to be an excellent man if he is functioning in the most excellent way. A
person who has shown greatness in his character is surely going to obtain a certain level of
success. In this regard, a person who is aiming for success should live moral life because a
moral person will develop his character that will determine his destiny. Moral character is the
force behind moral action.

The Stages of Moral Development

Lawrence Kohlberg was born on October 25, 1927, at Bronxville, New York, USA.
Kohlberg was an American psychologist and educator; who is known for his theory of moral
development.
Kohlberg’s theories on both psychology and education are very influential. His theory is
said to be the only one provided a very detailed explanation regarding the moral development
of children. Before, he developed his theory of psychology, most psychologist during his time
were behaviorists. It was only Kholberg, work that broke new grounds as he focused on the
cognitive phenomena. Because it was new, according to the American psychologist Carol
Gilligan, it ignored the distinct patterns of moral development exhibited by girls, Kohlberg work
received criticism. In 1971, while he was doing research in Belize, Kohlberg was said to have
contracted parasitic infection that led him to develop severe illness and depression for the rest
of his life. On January 17, 1987, Kohlberg committed suicide (Doorey).

The Moral Ideas of Lawrence Kohlberg

 Moral character serves as the basis for moral action. In such a case, what kind of
character should one have in order to have his action be considered moral. Here lies the
problem. Ethical relativism claims that the morality of an action depends upon one’s particular
culture or society. This principle of the ethical relativism was denied by the psychologist
Lawrence Kohlberg, who had a great interest in philosophy upheld the idea that there should be
a consensus of morality. In this case of differences on moral perspectives, he held there must
be a consensus of rightness. This is what he termed as the “ Consensus Theory of
Rightness”(Kohlberg 1984, 4). Kohlberg held that
………..rightness is the ideal limit of dialogue. In any case, it seemed to me very
important that we have a focus upon rightness because this is an area where there is a
requirement to reach a consensus about rightness, where there isn’t a requirement to reach
consensus about the good. And their basis perhaps in ontology or religion. That is, that
regardless of varying ideals of the good, we still need to have a consensus on issue of justice,
that is where individuals’ competing ideals of the good come into conflict with one another,
there needs to be some resolution to this problem.
How did Kohlberg come up with such idea of morality? During the time when he was
pursuing his doctoral degree Kohlberg became interested in Jean Piaget’s work regarding the
moral development of children. Kohlberg agreed with Piaget’s theory of moral development
principle. However, he wanted to develop this further. In such a case, he used the storytelling
technique of Jean Piaget. He narrated what he called the Heinz dilemma:
In Europe, a woman was near death from a very bad disease, a special kind of cancer.
There was one drug that the doctor’s 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 make. He paid $200 for the radium
and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman husband, Heinz, went to
everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could get together only about $1,000 which
was 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”. Heinz got desperate and broke into the man’s store to steal the drug for
his wife
(Kohlberg 1984, 6-7).
From Jean Piaget, he took the idea that children naturally progress from a form of moral
reasoning bases on the consequences of an act (e.g.., punishment) to one that takes the actors’
intentions into account. In order to prove his point, he interviewed 72 lower- and middle-class
white boys, presenting each with the Heinz dilemma written above. He tried to find out about
the view of the respondents on the issue as to whether if would be morally permissible for the
poor man to steal medicine for his dying wife. The children responses became his basis for his
theory on the stages of moral development.

The Stages of Moral Development

From the case presented above, Kohlberg develop his Stages of Moral Development.
After presenting to his subject the Heinz dilemma, he asked the series of questions such as (1)
Should Heinz have stolen the drug? (2) Would it change anything if Heinz did not love his wife?
(3) What if the person dying was a stranger, would it make any difference? (4) Should the
police arrest the chemist for murder if the woman died? By studying the answer from children
of different ages to these questions, Kohlberg hope to discover how moral reasoning changed
as people grew older. The 72 boys aged 10-16years were interviewed 58 of these boys were
followed up at three –year intervals for 20 years. Kohlberg was not actually interested in the
judgment of the boys but on the reason given for the decision. He found that these reasons
tended to change as the children got older (McLeod, 2013). From here, he enlisted three
distinct levels of moral reasoning, each with two sub-stages. Each new stage replaces the
reasoning typical of the earlier stage. But Kohlberg noted that not everyone achieves all the
stages.
1. Pre-Conventional Stage
This stage is also called the Self-Focused stage because this is concerned with
concrete consequences to individuals and its functioning on pursuing a concrete interest while
avoiding sanctions. At this stage (most nine-year olds and younger, some over nine), we do not
have a personal code of morality. Instead, our moral code is shaped by the standards of adults
and the consequences of following or breaking their rules. Here, authority is outside the
individual and reasoning is based on the physical consequence’s pf actions.

a. Stage 1: Obedience and Punishment Orientation. This is the orientation to

punishment and reward and to physical and material power. At age 10, the
respondent say, “Heinz shouldn’t steal: he should buy the drug, if he steals the drug,
he might get put in jail and have to put the drug back anyway” (Kohlberg, 7). Hence,
at this stage, what is right for the person to do is to obey the rules and avoid physical
damage to person and property. The reason for making a moral decision is to avoid
punishment
(Power, 2018)

b. Stage 2: Pleasure Orientation or the Instrumental- Purposive Orientation.

This stage is characterized by hedonistic orientation with an instrument with an
instrument view of human relations. The emphasis in this stage is placed on the idea
of reciprocity. The child respondent says: “Heinz should steal the drug to save his wife
life. He might get to jail, but he will still have his wife” (Kohlberg). This response of a
child is an individual, egoistic conception that he values his wife’s life more than the
values going to jail for a while.
A child even commented: If it was a pet he could get a new pet, but it is not easy to get a new
wife” The focus in this stage is placed on the idea of reciprocity, i.. e., on the exchange of
favors. What is right is ones’ immediate interest, and letting others act also in their own
interest. An action is considered to be morally right if it is fair. The reason for acting morally is
merely to satisfy one’s need and admit the needs of others in their own self-interest. While the
others is after his own, interest, I also have my own interest. Hence, if I do what is wrong, I
might not obtain my own interest. Human relation, in this stage, is seen as a marketplace, i.e..,
a place of exchange of interest (Gensler, 189-190).

2. Conventional Stage

This stage is characterized by the Group Focused stages and it is concerned with fulfilling
role expectations, as well as maintaining and supporting the social order. At this level(most
adolescent and adults), we begin to internalize the moral standards of valued adult role models.
Here, authority is internalized but not questioned, and reasoning is based on the norms of the
group to which the person belongs (McLeod).
 c. Stage 3: Peer and Group Acceptance Orientation. This stage is the “good boy”
orientation as it seeks to maintain expectations and win approval of one’s immediate
group. A boy at this stage says, “If I was Heinz, I would have stolen the drug for my
wife. You cannot put a price on love, no amount of gifts make love, you cannot put
price on life either” (Kohlberg, 8).

In this stage, what is considered morally right is what pleases or helps others and what is
approved by others. A moral act is that which reinforces mutual relationship such as trust,
loyalty, respect, and gratitude. Here, the reason for helping and for pleasing others is his own
need to be seen by the others as a loyal and caring person, and therefore, a moral person. In
terms of one’s relation to the society, a person in this stage takes the third person’s
perspective; hence, one should be aware of shared feelings and group expectations (Kohlberg).

d. Stage 4: Social Structure Orientation. At this stage the individual becomes aware
of the wider rules of society, so judgment concern obeying the rules in order to uphold
the law and to avoid guilt (McLeod). The stage is characterized by an orientation to
authority, law and duty. The main preoccupation is on how to maintain a fixed order,
whether social or religious. Such order is assumed as a primary value.
At this stage, one respondent says, “When you get married, you take a vow love
and cherish your wife. Marriage is not only love; it is obligation like a legal contract. But it is
also a contract before God.” In this regard, one has already a notion of religious and legal
order, which is obligatory and in which one has a defined place, a role and that one has entered
into his role and this commits one to certain rules (Kohlberg). Hence, the person is expected to
show respect for laws authority, society. They are also required to contribute to the
maintenance of society and institutions. Kohlberg believed that conscience is imperative to the
moral law and to the ethical system. A conscientious person will definitely feel bad if he fails to
perform his duty and will feel worse if, instead of performing one’s duty, he becomes the cause
of the destruction of the community.

3. Post –Conventional Stage

Individual judgment is based on self-chosen principles, and moral reasoning is

based on individual rights and justice. According to Kohlberg, this level of moral reasoning is as
far as most people get. Only 10 to 15% are capable of the kind of abstract thinking necessary
for stage 5 or 6. That is to say most people take their moral views from those around them and
only a minority think through ethical principles for themselves. In this stage, it is here that one
examines, adopts, and applies the different ethical frameworks or principles (McLeod).

e. Stage 5: Social –Contract Orientation. This stage puts emphasis on equality and
mutual obligation within a democratically establish order. One of the respondents who
went from stage 2 at age 10 to stage 5 at age 25 responded to the dilemma: I think
he was justified in breaking in because there was a human life at sake. I think that
transcends any right that the druggist had to the drug.” At this stage, an individual,
the rights of other individuals, and not interfering with the rights of others (Kohlberg,
9).
At this stage, one is concerned that obligation be based on calculations of overall
utility and on what is really good for all. To a certain extent, there is universality in this good
reasoning but still within basic human society and basic human agreements.
 f. Stage 6: The Universal Ethical Principle. This stage is focused on the principles of
conscience that have logical comprehension and universality. The highest value is
placed on the human life, on equality, and on human dignity. People at this stage
have develop their own set of moral guidelines which may or may not fir the law. The
principles apply to everyone; hence universal.

Although Kohlberg’s theory had criticism, his work still a great value because he was able to
connect psychology and philosophy in establishing a moral perspective on human behavior and
character. Moreover, his study was a proof that a human person is capable of making moral
decision and such decision can for the benefits not only of one’s self but of the others. At the
same time, every human person can grow to maturity depending on the kind of education one
receives or the environment where one lives in.
Name:_________________________________________

Course:_________________________________________ Date:_____________________

Module 2
Foundations of Morality
Moral Agent

Direction: Write TRUE if the statement is correct and FALSE if the statement is incorrect.
Write your answer on the space provided before each number.

1. It is the moral agent who gives meaning in all the action that may
result to either good or bad.

2. The study of ethics should focused on the acquisition of knowledge.

3. What is important in the study of ethics is not the acquisition of

knowledge of good moral perspective but the action that is a product of
one’s ethical decision.

4. A person is to be considered wise if he knows how to apply his

knowledge on a situation where there is a dilemma.

5. The validity of moral standards will be based on the ethical theories

that one is following.

6. An action is considered to be morally acceptable if it is accepted by the

majority.
 7. Ethnocentrism believes that there is an absolute moral standard.

8. Moral relativists claims that the different sets of moral principles are of
equal worth and nobody can claim that their moral beliefs and culture
are better than those of the others.

9. Ethicians believe that man can still be moral even without believing in a
God.

10. Filipinos can accept his fate and destiny because of his religiosity

Name:_________________________________________

Course:_________________________________________ Date:_____________________

Direction: Identify the following. Write your answer in the space provided before each
number.

1. It is the principle that states that morality of an action

depends upon the greatest happiness of the greatest
number of people. What principle is this?

2. He is known as the founder of Ethical Relativism. Who is

this philosopher?

3. According to him, “the only thing necessary for the triumph

of evil is for good men to do nothing” Who said this?

4. He believed that the problem in the morality of the Filipino

is the consideration of the actual and the prevailing norms
of right and wrong among Filipinos. Who is he?

5. It is the view that God’s system of beliefs and values is

morally superior to all other beliefs and values. What belief
is this?
 6. It is the belief that one particular ethic group is superior to
all others. What belief is this?

Direction: Answer the question very briefly. Write your answer in the space
provided.

Can the Filipino values be considered as the basis of morality? Why or why not?

_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
Name:_________________________________________

Course:_________________________________________ Date:_____________________

THE DEVELOMENT OF MORAL CHARACTER

Direction: Read the situations presented below. Make a moral decision on the dilemma
presented below.

Mr. Oscar is a professor at a prestigious university in Manila. He teaches Ethics to BS

Accountancy students. Because of his hard work, his great knowledge on the subject, and his
wit and humor, the student very much appreciated him because he makes the class lively and
enjoyable. For this reason, he is known as the best teacher in the university.
One day, after a class discussion on the topic regarding the value of honesty, three
students made an admission in class they were involved in the series of thefts and robberies in
the school’s canteen and in other offices of the university. Because of the ethics class, the
students felt guilty of their actions and promised to the class that they are not to do any acts of
robbery anymore.
These students told Mr. Oscar about how miserable their lives and the reason why they
robbed the school was because they wanted to cope with the expenses of the school and use
some money to buy food for the family. However, because of the great amount that they have
taken from the school and impossibility of paying said amount back to school, they will
definitely be expelled. Expulsion eventually would mean that the three will not anymore be
included in the list of graduating students and, therefore, the hope of helping their family
financially at the soonest possible time will not be realized.
As an ethics teacher, and being professional at that, it is the responsibility of Mr. Oscar
to tell the administration about the case. After all, the whole class knows already the case.
However, as human person, it will be an act of charity if he will just let it pass by because, after
all, they promised that they would not be doing it again. Should Mr. Oscar tell the school
administration about the case? Why or why not? Explain your case.

_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________