Republic of the Philippines

SAINT JOSEPH COLLEGE

Maasin City, Southern Leyte

College of Liberal Arts

General Education Department

Teachers’ Notes
Emmarlone Salva Ravago | October 1, 2022

Part II – The Moral Agent

I. Human Freedom
A. What is Free Will?
B. Free Will, Freedom of Action and Liberty
C. Free Will and Moral Responsibility
II. Culture and Moral Behavior
A. Filipino Morality
III. Cultural Relativism
A. What is Cultural Relativism?
B. The Untenability of Cultural Relativism
IV. Moral Development
A. Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development

Page 1 of 12
 Human Freedom

What is Free Will?

• Broadly speaking, free will refers to the capacity of human beings to choose among
alternatives, or act in certain situations independently of natural, social, or divine
restraints.

• In other words, free will is the capacity of humans to make choices that are
genuinely their own.

• Hence, we can say that a person has free will if she is able to choose whatever she
wishes.

Free Will, Freedom of Action and Liberty

• Free will is not the same as freedom of action.

• Whereas free will is the capacity of a person to choose, freedom of action refers to
things that prevent a person from doing something, that is, from realizing a chosen
action.

• For example, a prisoner may have the free will to choose to go to the park, but he
doesn’t have the freedom of action to do so, that is to actually go to the park because he
is imprisoned.

• Free will is also not the same as political or social freedom, better known as liberty.

• Broadly speaking, liberty is the ability to do as one pleases; it is a given right, privilege,
or immunity.

• Just because you will be imprisoned for killing a person does not mean that you cannot
choose to, or actually do, so.

• Here one does not have the liberty to kill a person (simply because one does not have
the right to do so), but one can still, inside oneself, choose to kill that person, or even
actually do so.

• As you can see, free will is more fundamental than, meaning it comes before, freedom
of action and liberty.

Page 2 of 12
Free Will and Moral Responsibility

• Free will always comes with moral responsibility; that is, the ownership of one’s
good or bad action and its consequences.

• This means that if a person makes a choice that is morally good, then she deserves
the resulting rewards ; while if she makes a morally bad one, then she probably
deserves the resulting punishments or whatever consequences.

• Because of free will, therefore, human beings are responsible for their actions and
their consequences.

References and Resources

• What is Free Will? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIIsKphXOEs

Page 3 of 12
 Culture and Moral Behavior

Filipino Morality

References and Resources

• The Filipino Way https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZB-J--ymuI&t=47s

Page 4 of 12
 Cultural Relativism

What is Cultural Relativism?

• Cultural relativism is the view that there are no universal truths in ethics; meaning
that there is no absolute moral standard for judging an action as good or bad, right
or wrong.

• This is because morality, according to this view, is culture-bound. It is one’s culture

that determines whether one’s action—at least in that particular culture or society
—is good or bad.

• And since there are many different cultures around the world, it follows that there
are also many different moralities. Each society has its own moral beliefs and
practices, some of which, if not all, may not be shared by other societies. What is
considered right by one culture may not be considered so by another, and vice
versa.

• Take for example Herodotus’ account of the “Callatians”, an ancient Indian tribe,
who believed that eating the body of their dead ancestors was good. While the
ancient Greeks considered cremation as the proper way of disposing the dead. One
day, king Darius of Persia, asked some Greeks and Callatians who were in his court
what it would take for each of them to try the other’s burial practice. Disgusted, both
the Greeks and Callatians thought it was horrible to do such a thing.

• Now because there is no universal moral standard, cultural relativism considers all
cultures and moralities as equal. No one culture and morality is correct, wrong,
superior or inferior to another (otherwise it would suppose that there was an
absolute standard of right or wrong by which we judged that particular culture or
morality as such).

• It is therefore wrong, according to this view, to judge the beliefs and practices of
other cultures, especially using our own standards—a practice known as
“ethnocentrism.” Instead, we should strive to understand them on their own terms
and adopt an attitude of tolerance.

• That the Callatians ate the bodies of their dead ancestors is therefore, following
cultural relativism, equally good and right as the Greeks’ cremation of theirs—at
least in and according to their respective cultures. Neither of them should judge the
other’s practice as wrong or inferior. Rather, they should try to understand each
other from their proper cultural context and be tolerant towards each other.

Page 5 of 12
The Untenability of Cultural Relativism
1. The Cultural Differences Argument
• Despite being a convincing view, cultural relativism however has its limitations.
• The form of argument used to support this view (the Cultural Differences
Argument) is not as sound as it appears to be.
• Briefly, the Cultural Differences Argument states that:
▸ Premise: Different cultures have different moral codes.
▸ Conclusion: Therefore, there is no objective “truth” in morality. Right and
wrong are only matters of opinion, and opinions vary from culture to culture.
• From a logical point of view, the Cultural Differences Argument is a non sequitur—
and is therefore invalid. This means that its conclusion does not follow from its
premise.
• If we think about it, even if the premise of the Argument is true (for it is indeed a
known fact that different cultures have different moral codes), it does not
automatically follow however that the conclusion that there is no objective truth in
morality is also true.
• To help explain this, let us take a similar argument from geography.
▸ Before, some people believed that the earth is flat, while others argued that it
is spherical.
▸ Does it follow, then, from the mere fact that they disagree, that there is no
objective truth in geography?
• We would never draw such a conclusion because we know that some people’s
beliefs about the world might simply be wrong.
• Also, there is no reason to think that if the world is round everyone must know it.
• Similarly, there is no reason to think, therefore, that if there is an objective moral
truth everyone must know it.

2. Cultures are More Similar than They Appear

• Cultural relativism exaggerates the differences between cultures to the point of
disregarding their many similarities.
• Oftentimes when we examine even their most apparent differences, we will discover
that cultures around the world are not really that different from each other than
they appear to be.

Page 6 of 12
 • For example, Hindus don’t eat cows. The Hindus do not eat these animals to respect
the spirit of their elders who may be in their bodies.
• The value of respect for one’s elders is not unique to Hindu Indians.
• All, if not most, cultures around the world share the same value, although they may
express it differently.
• Along with respect for one’s elders, other values shared by cultures around the
world include protection of children, truth telling, prohibition of murder, etc.
• Indeed, all, if not most, societies share the same values.
• It is often only in the expression of these values—in their beliefs and practices—that
they differ from each other.
• Cultural relativism tends to exaggerate these apparent differences, overlooking their
many and deeper similarities.

References and Resources

• What is Cultural Relativism? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmcWut5Bfog

Page 7 of 12
 Moral Development

Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development

• Each of us has unique ways of responding to moral situations.
• In the famous Heinz dilemma, for example, some of you may have said that Heinz
was right for stealing the drug because saving his wife is more important than
protecting the pharmacist’s property; while others, however, may have argued that
he was wrong since there are other—more legal—ways of saving his wife aside
from stealing.
• One psychologist who tried to explain why we have different perspectives and
decisions even in similar moral situations was Lawrence Kohlberg.
• He conducted a study in the 1950s using stories of moral dilemmas. He asked people
what they would do and why if they found themselves in similar situations.
• He then analyzed their answers and came up with his stage theory known as the
Stages of Moral Development.

What is Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development?

• Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development is a theory based on the work of Swiss
psychologist Jean Piaget that explains the development of moral reasoning in
individuals.
• According to Kohlberg, moral development follows a series of six progressive stages,
each of which is more capable of responding adequately to moral dilemmas than
previous ones.
• These six stages, in turn, can be grouped into three general levels: the pre-
conventional, conventional, and post-conventional.
• Following Piaget, Kohlberg argued that it is rare for someone to go back to an earlier
stage of moral development, since the understanding in each stage is retained in
later ones. Moreover, an individual cannot skip any stage, for each stage provides a
new and necessary perspective, more comprehensive and distinct than, but
integrated with, previous ones.

Page 8 of 12
Level 1: Pre-Conventional Level
• This level of moral reasoning is especially common among children and even in
animals. Individuals at this level judge the morality of an action by its direct
consequences. They conform to rules in order to avoid punishment or receive
rewards.
• People at the pre-conventional level are egocentric, meaning they are solely
concerned with themselves. They think that what is right is what one can get away
with or what is personally satisfying.

Stage 1: Punishment and Obedience Orientation

• Individuals in this stage focus on the direct consequences of their actions on
themselves. They obey in order to avoid punishment.
• For example, a child in this stage will consider an action morally bad because he
ended up being punished the last time he did it.

Stage 2: Instrumental Purpose Orientation

• This stage can be best described by the expression, “what’s in it for me?”
• In this stage, individuals consider any moral behavior good if it serves their interest
or is convenient. Their focus is solely on receiving rewards or satisfying personal
needs, without any regard for others.
• If at all they’re concerned with others, it is because other people further their own
interests or they get something in return.

Level 2: Conventional Level

• This level is typical of adolescents and adults.
• At this level, individuals accept society’s conventions of right and wrong usually
without any question.
• Their focus shifts from self-interest to relationships with other people and with
society as a whole.
• Individuals strive to obey rules set by parents, peers, and the government in order
to win their approval or to maintain social order.

Page 9 of 12
Stage 3: Good Boy/Nice Girl Orientation
• Individuals in this stage enter society by conforming to social standards.
• They try to be a "good boy" or "good girl" in order to live up to society’s
expectations, having learned that being regarded as good makes other people like
them.
• They start to judge the morality of an action by evaluating its consequences to their
relationships, which now begin to include things like respect, gratitude, and the
"golden rule".

Stage 4: Law and Order Orientation

• Individuals in this stage take into consideration a larger perspective, that of society.
• Their moral decision making has now moved beyond the need for individual
approval and the consequences to their relationship with others.
• They believe that rules and laws maintain social order that is worth preserving.
• Most active members of society remain in this stage, where morality is still
predominantly dictated by an outside force.

Level 3: Post-Conventional or Principled Level

• At the Post-Conventional Level, individuals have a wider view of morality. They
move beyond the perspective of their own society and attempt to assume that of all
individuals.
• Their morality, then, is defined in terms of universal principles and values that apply
to all individuals and situations.
• Also, they have their own moral principles and start to realize that their moral views
may not be the same as society’s, and vice-versa.
• Because of this, they believe that one can disobey society’s rules if they are
inconsistent with one’s own principles.
• They believe that rules are not absolute orders that must be obeyed without
question.

Page 10 of 12
Stage 5: Social Contract Orientation
• Individuals in this stage view the world as holding different opinions, rights, and
values.
• Because of this, they respect each perspective as unique to each person or society.
• They regard laws as social contracts rather than rigid orders—tools that can be
modified to improve human well-being.
• Hence, they believe that rules should be changed especially when these are
inconsistent with individual rights or do not promote the interests of the majority.
This can be achieved by majority decision and compromise.

Stage 6: Universal Ethical Principle Orientation

• In this stage, the right action is determined by one’s self-chosen ethical principles of
conscience. These principles are abstract and universal in application, meaning it
takes the perspective of every person or group that could potentially be affected by
the decision.
• Individuals in this stage see an action never as a means but rather always as an end
in itself; this means that they act because it is right, and not merely because it avoids
them punishment, or is in their best interest, or is expected, legal or previously
agreed upon.
• Although Kohlberg insisted that stage six exists, he found it difficult to identify
individuals who consistently demonstrated its principles. He also claimed that some
individuals may never reach this stage.

Criticisms
• Though still a theory, many later studies have confirmed the basic ideas of
Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development, ideas such as the general sequence of its
stages and their cumulative comprehension of succeeding stages.
• Some scholars, on the other hand, have criticized it as too “androcentric”, since it
was narrowly based on the responses of white, upper-class men and boys; and also
as culturally biased, because its highest stages of moral reasoning primarily reflect
the western ideal of justice based on individualistic thought.

Page 11 of 12
References and Resources
• Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jn-
rTnHbJWs

Page 12 of 12