Why Rules?

• Order
• Get things done
• We are beings with others.
“Esse est co-esse” – to be is to be with

Using Rules of Our Lives

1. Etiquette – standards by which we judge

manners to be good or bad; normally dictated
by a socio-economic elite.
2. Legal – standards by which we judge legal
right and wrong; in a democracy, formulated by
representatives of the people.
3. Language – standards by which we judge
what is grammatically right or wrong: evolve
through use.
4. Aesthetics – standards by which we judge
good and bad art; usually dictated by a small
circle of art connoisseurs.
5. Athletic – standards by which we judge how
good or bad a game is played; usually
formulated by governing bodies.
 Are these rules moral?

• Rules mandating fair treatment of all races

• Rules that give women equal rights with
men
• Rules forcing management to treat workers
fairly
• Rules prohibiting parents from abusing
(verbally, emotionally, physically and
sexually) their children

How are non-moral standards different from

moral standards?

1. Moral standards deal with matters that

can seriously injure or benefit human
beings. Ex. theft, rape, fraud, slander,
murder
2. The validity of moral standards rests on
the adequacy of reasons to support and
justify them, not on decisions of majority or
authoritative bodies.
3. Moral standards are to be preferred to
other values, including self-interest. Ex.
honesty is to be preferred than cheating,
although cheating can make me graduate.
4. Moral standards are based on impartial
considerations. Another way of putting this
is ‘universalizable’ or taking the point of
view of an ideal observer. Still this
impartiality must be balanced with partiality
towards those we have a special
relationship (family and friends) and the
poor and the disabled.
5. Moral standards are associated with
special emotions such as guilt, shame,
remorse, praise, indignation.

“What is common to all 5 characteristics?”

“Individual responsibility cannot be taken in

isolation from social responsibility.”

• Non compliance with moral standards

seriously injure us as human beings.
“Nababawasan ang pagkatao”
 • The challenge of moral standards is that in
violating them, effect is not always
immediate and visible.
• There is a call for us to be moral/respond to
values. When we do not respond to the call,
it is not the value that is destroyed but “us.”

Ethics & Morality (Velasquez)

Morality: pertains to standards of right and

wrong, usually inherited from a community.

Ethics: studies standards of right and wrong,

the act of making a decision, the nature of the
agent who makes the decision.

1. Ethics entails a reflective distance to critically

examine standards. It looks for values beneath
these moral standards (WHAT or WHY)

Example: We take for granted that we should

marry in church. But have we asked why? If we
do, this will affect our attitude to divorce, etc.

Value: Lifelong commitment

2. It looks at the agent who makes the moral
decision: Mature? Level of moral development
(WHO)

3. It is about the moral decision-making process

(HOW)
“Ethics is not about theoretical knowledge but
application of that knowledge, transforming it to
action in everyday life.”

Part 1: Moral Dilemma

Dilemmas = are signalled by being “bothered” –

nababagabag
• Why am I bothered?

• When did you last have that “bothered”

feeling?

What is a dilemma?
• Dilemmas are experiences where an

agent is confused about the right decision

to make because there are several
 competing values that are seemingly
equally important and urgent.

Feelings and Dilemmas

Strong feelings signal the presence of a dilemma.

But many people do not always “catch” the

dilemma behind the feeling.

One can be conditioned to be indifferent so that

what used to be NAKAKABAGABAG is no longer a
dilemma.

Dilemmas are not about competing solutions,

but about “competing values”

How should we handle a moral dilemma?

Certainly not through feelings

Upsurge of feelings cannot be prevented

“What we do with them separates the mature

from the immature moral agent”
Using Reason and Impartiality

Reason defined
• A faculty

• A way of dealing with issues

• Moral judgments are not a matter of

personal preferences or tastes

“… the morally right thing to do, in any

circumstance, is determined by what there are
the best reasons for doing.”
– Rachel, “What is Morality”

Impartiality defined
• Every stakeholder’s interest is equally

important
• There are no special interests or people,

thus in making every moral decision, each

stakeholder interest should be considered
• One must not be arbitrary

• Every person should be treated the same

way unless there is good reason not to do

so

Why Reason? Why Impartiality?

 • Because dilemmas are complex experiences;
hard to make a good decision.
• An agent is confused about the right decision
to make because there are several competing
values that different stakeholders protect.

Three Levels of Moral Dilemma in the

Workplace

1. Individual – The dilemma here is when

the employee’s ethical standards are in
opposition to that of his or her employer,
which could lead to tensions in the
workplace.

2. Organizational – Ethical standards are seen

in company policies. Still and all, there might be a
gap between those who run the business whose
ethical standards deviate from that of the
organization. This might cause ethical challenges
and conflicts for those who are working in the
company.

3. Systemic – Also called the systemic level,

here, ethics is predisposed by the larger
operating environment of the company. Political
pressures, economic conditions, societal
attitudes, and others, can affect the operating
standards and policies of the organization where
it might face moral dilemmas outside of the
organization but within the macro-society where
it belongs.

Part 2: Three Sources of Authority

There are certain notions of ethics that are

commonly maintained (e.g. an appeal to a
particular form of authority), but further thought
on these notions will reveal that these are quite
problematic.

1. LAW
• It is supposed that law is one’s guide to
ethical behavior. The term positive law
refers to the different rules and regulations
that are posited or put forward by an
authority figure that require compliance.
• At first glance, this seems to make a lot of
sense. There are many acts that we
immediately consider unethical (e.g., murder
and theft), which we also know are forbidden
by law.
• Taking the law to be the basis of ethics has
the benefit of providing us with an objective
standard that is obligatory and applicable to
all. So we would not be surprised if we were
to hear someone say, “Ethics? It is simple.
Just follow whatever the law says.”

• One point to be raised against the simple

identification of ethics with the law is the
prohibitive nature of law. The law does not
tell us what we should do; it works by simply
constraining us from performing acts that we
should not do.
 • We might find that there are certain ways of
acting which are not forbidden by the law, but
are ethically questionable to us.
(contractualization)

2. RELIGION

“Love the Lord, Your God, therefore, and

always heed his charge: his statutes, decrees,
and the commandments.” (Deuterenomy 11:1
NAB)

• As a foundation for ethical values, this is

referred to as the divine command theory,
the idea that one is obliged to obey her God in
all things.
• The divinity called God, Allah, or Supreme
Being commands and one is obliged to obey
her Creator.
• By listening to persons and reading the texts
linked to the Divine, an individual discovers
how the Divine wants her to act.
• Further, someone maintaining a more radical
form of this theory might go beyond these
 instruments of divine revelation and claim
God “spoke” to her directly to instruct her
what to do. (Philosophia Article)

• At first glance, this seems to make a lot of

sense. It is very possible that there is a strong
inclination in us to refer to our religious
background to back up our moral valuations.
• We are presented with a more-or-less clear
code of prohibitions and many of these
prohibitions given by religion – “thou shall
not kill,” “thou shall not steal,” and “thou shall
not commit adultery” – seem intuitively
coincide with our sense of what ethics should
rightly demand.
• In addition, there is an advance here over the
law because religion is not simply prohibitive,
but it also provides ideals to pursue (e.g.
forgive those who sinned against him).
• Further, taking religion as basis of ethics has
the advantage of providing us with not only a
set of commands but also a Supreme Being
that can inspire and compel our obedience in
a way that nothing else can.
• Thus, we would not be surprised if we were
to hear someone say, “Ethics? It is simple.
Just follow whatever your religion says.”

• However, there are some problems with this.

First, on the practical level, we realize the
presence of a multiplicity of religions.
• Each faith demands differently from its
adherents, which would apparently result in
conflicting ethical standards. (movie “PK”)
• There is also the problem of some people
being “atheists.” The question, “would we be
compelled to admit then that if religion is the
basis of morality, some people would simply
have no moral code?”
• The problem of “difference” here is not only
in the context of varying religious traditions
but also within one and the same faith.

• Second, on what may be called a more

conceptual level, we can see a further
problem where one requires the believer to
clarify her understanding of the connection
 between ethics and the Divine. The problem
here is expressed by Socrates when he said,
“Is it holy only because it is loved by the
gods, or is it holy in itself and that is why it
is loved by the gods?”

3. CULTURE

• Our exposure to different societies and their

cultures makes us aware that there are ways
of thinking and valuing that are different from
our own, that there is in fact a wide diversity
of how people believe it is proper to act.
• There are aesthetic differences (Japanese art
vs. Indian art), religious differences
(Buddhism vs. Christianity), and etiquette
differences (conflicting behaviors regarding
dining practices). In these bases, it may
become easy to conclude that this is the case
in ethics as well.
• From the reality of diversity, it is possible for
someone to jump to the further claim that the
sheer variety at work in the different ways of
valuation means that there is no single
 universal standard for such valuations, and
that this holds true as well in the realm of
ethics.
• Therefore, what is ethically acceptable or
unacceptable is relative to, or that is to say,
dependent on one’s culture. This position is
referred to as cultural relativism.
• Thus, we would not be surprised if we were
to hear someone say, “Ethics? It is simple.
Just follow whatever your culture says.”

Part 1: The Issue and Attractions of Ethical

Relativism

The view which holds that all moral principles

are valid relative to a particular society or
individual, is called ethical relativism.
• It is to be distinguished from ethical

skepticism – which claims that there are no

valid moral principles at all (or at least we
cannot know whether there are any).
 • It is to be distinguished from ethical
objectivism – which asserts that there are
universally valid moral principles binding on
all people.

• According to the relativist perspective, the

rightness or wrongness of an act depends on
the moral norms of society or the moral
inclinations of the individual, and no absolute
standard exists by which differing rules or
inclinations can be judged.

There are 2 forms of ethical relativism: cultural

ethical relativism and individual ethical
relativism.
• According to cultural ethical relativism, also

known as ethical conventionalism, the

rightness or wrongness of an action depends
on society’s norms.
• According to individual ethical relativism,

also known as ethical subjectivism, the

rightness or wrongness of an action lies on
the individual’s own commitments.
Cultural ethical relativism (conventionalism)
claims that there are valid moral principles
justified by virtue of their cultural acceptance
(not by the existence of universal moral
principles).
• The rightness or wrongness of an act is based

on the cultural or social norms of the people

in which it is done and judged.

Cultural relativism debunks the concept of

ethnocentrism – which is the practice of taking
one’s own people, society and culture to be the
vantage point from which all else is viewed and
judged (Bruce & Yearly, 2006).
• People coming from first world countries

could be prone to ethnocentrism. Because of

the idea that they are living in ideal, powerful
countries, there is a tendency that they might
look down on other cultures which are totally
opposite of theirs.
• Ethnocentric individuals are prone to

misreading contexts, therefore, misjudging

individuals from other cultures.
Conversely, those who are coming from poor and
developing countries might experience
xenocentrism. It is the belief that one’s cultural
features are a downgrade in comparison to those
of other cultures.
• Xenocentric individuals value commodities,

style, culture or even ideas from another

country or culture other than their own (Bell,
2017).

The 3 Main Arguments to support the doctrine of

“cultural relativism” are the Diversity Argument,
the Dependency Argument, and the Toleration
Argument.

The Diversity Argument is premised on the

factual or empirical claim that moral beliefs and
moral rules vary from culture to culture.
• Anthropologists have observed a range of

practices considered morally acceptable in

some societies, but condemned in others.

The Dependency Argument lies on the view

that moral beliefs are true or valid only relative
to certain groups.
 • According to Pojman (1999, 29), “Morality
does not exist on a vacuum; rather, what is
considered morally right or wrong must be
seen in a context, depending on the goals,
wants, beliefs, history, and environment of
the society in question.”
• We cannot see things from an independent,
noncultural view point. We are simply
culturally-determined creatures.

The Toleration Argument is the view that

acknowledges the differences among various
societies in terms of their moral beliefs and
practices that lead to respect, social harmony,
and peaceful co-existence.
• According to this reasoning, relativism may

be the right way of looking at morality since it

offers the promise of tolerance and
understanding, attitudes that most of us value
highly.
Part 2: The Challenges of Ethical Relativism

Though cultural relativism is an attractive theory,

there are problems. In the classic exposition by
James Rachels, he presents some of these
difficulties.
• The first 3 points are his criticisms of

relativism.
• The 4
th point is based on more recent and

more contextualized observations.

• The 5
th is the possibility of universal

moral standards.

1. The argument of cultural relativism is

premised on the reality of difference. Because
different cultures have different moral codes, we
cannot say that any one moral code is the right
one. But is it a case of the presence of
disagreement means there are no right and
wrong answers?
• Isn’t it a common experience to be confronted

by a disagreement between persons and then

to have the conflict clarified later as to who is
right or wrong?
 • In other words, disagreement may mean that
the question of who is right or wrong is not
immediately evident, but it does not
necessarily mean that there is no one correct
resolution.

One of the points raised is the illogical flow of the

relativist argument. According to this theory,
given that people have different moral beliefs and
practices, we can conclude that morality is
relative.
• The problem in this line of reasoning is that

even if the premise is true, the conclusion

cannot be inferred to be true.

2. Under cultural relativism, we realize that we

are in no position to render any kind of
judgment on the practices of another culture.
This seems to be a generous and an open-minded
way of respecting others. But what if the practice
seems to call for comment?
• What if a particular African tribe thought it is

advantageous and therefore right for them to

wipe out a neighboring people through a
terrible practice of genocide?
 • What if some Middle Eastern country was
highly repressive toward women reaching to
the point of violence?
• Are we in no position to judge any of this as
wrong? Would we be satisfied with
concluding that we cannot judge another
culture? But this is one of the implications of
cultural relativism.

3. Under cultural relativism, we are in no

position to render judgment on the practices
of even our own culture. If our culture was the
basis for determining right and wrong, we would
be unable to say that something within our
cultural practice was problematic, precisely
because we take our culture to be the standard
for making such judgments.
• If we came from a particular society wherein

there is a tradition of arranged marriages, we

would simply have to accept that this is how
we do things. But what if we are not satisfied
with this conclusion?
• We may be proud and glad about identifying

certain traits, values, and practices of our

 culture, but we may not necessarily wish to
conform to all of them.
• It is possible that we may not be satisfied with
the thought of not being able to call our own
culture into question.

4. Perhaps the most evident contemporary

difficulty with cultural relativism is that we can
maintain it only by following the presumption of
culture as a single, clearly-defined substance
or as something fixed and already
determined.
• It is always possible to find examples of a

certain culture having a unique practice or

way of life and to distinguish it from other
cultures’ practices, but it is also becoming
increasingly difficult to determine what
exactly defines one’s culture.

• Is my culture “Filipino?”
• What am I supposed to take as “my culture?”
• Let us say that my father is from Pampanga
and my mother is from Leyte, and I was
 brought up in Metro Manila: what is my
culture?
• On one hand, let us say that my father is
American and my mother is Filipino, and I
was brought up in San Diego, California, but I
am currently studying in a university in the
Philippines: what am I supposed to take as
“my culture?”

• In an increasingly globalized world, the

notion of a static and well-defined culture
gives way to greater flexibility and
integration.
• One result of this is to call into question an
idea like cultural relativism, which only makes
sense if one could imagine a clear-cut notion
of what can be defined as my culture.

5. Perhaps the strongest argument to refute

cultural relativism lies on the assertion that
despite the fact that some moral beliefs and
practices vary among cultures, there are still
universal moral standards that exist.
 • Though people have different cultures,
customs, traditions, religions, and ideologies,
they still have something in common
emanating from their shared humanity.
• Respect for life, pursuit for truth and justice,
desire for peace, to cite some, are values that
all human persons, no matter how primitive
or sophisticated their culture or civilization
is, would recognize and acknowledge as
worth pursuing.

*** Conclusion
• Cultural relativism is a problem in our study

of ethics because it tends to deprive us of our

use of critical thought.
• On the positive side, cultural relativism

promotes a sense of humility, that is, urging

us not to imagine that our own culture is
superior to another.
• Such humility, however, should go hand in

hand with a capacity for a rational, critical

discernment that is truly appreciative of
human values.
Part 1: Ethics and Culture
*Outline
• I am Defined (being defined by context,

culture, situation)
• Appreciation of the Difference (being defined

by context, culture, situation)

• In many ways, we are the same: Universal

Values

***I am Defined

Social grouping
• Family – both parents present, OFW parents,

number of siblings, extended family, etc.

• Civil Status

• School affiliation

• Gender – accepted roles for men and women

Socio-economic status
• Lower class – are characterized by poverty,

homelessness, and unemployment.

• Working class – are those minimally educated

people who engage in “manual labor” with

little or no prestige (blue collar workers)
• Middle class – are the “sandwich” class.

(white collar workers)

 • Upper class – are extremely wealthy people
who live off the income from their inherited
riches.

Age group; Generation

• The greatest generation: born before 1928

• The silent generation: born between 1928

and 1945
• The baby boomer generation: born between

1946 and 1964

• Generation X: born between 1965 and 1980

• The millennials or generation Y: born

between 1980 and 1994

• Generation Z: born after 1995

Religion (communal charismatic)

• The Philippine Statistics Authority in October

2015 reported that 80.58% of the total

Filipino population were Roman Catholics,
10.8% were Protestants and 5.57% were
Islamic.

• Professions
• Country
 • International Community

***Appreciation of Differences

• Why be aware? Why do we need to know we

are culture-bound?
• No philosophy starts with the self, it is rooted
on the culture.

• When we are not aware of our embeddedness

(pagka-ugat) in Culture, we are convinced
there is only one way of doing things.
o “When is the right age to get married;”

“There is a God.”
o -”pag hindi tayo mulat, hindi natin

sisiyasatin ang tanong.”

• Embeddedness (pagka-ugat) helps us to think

our origin and the origin of others.
• Understanding the context is very important!
• Now, what is culture? And what is the impact
of it to our personality, behaviour?
“In so far as you are a social cross-point of social
events, you find yourself as a certain event without
having decided it. You are there, whether you like
it or not, you and I have a certain set of social
habits, just as an individual after a while forms a
certain individual habits which finally
characterize him as a personality. A society after
a while generates a set of social habits which we
ultimately can call culture.”
- Dr. Ramon C.
Reyes “Man and Historical Action”

We are culturally-bound
and every culture has its own
VALUES.

Culture is defined as that complex whole which

includes knowledge, beliefs, arts, morals, law,
customs, and any other capabilities and habits
acquired by man as a member of society (Burke,
2008).
• It is one big chunk of our society that dictates

how we are supposed to act in varying

situations based on what is right and wrong,
 acceptable or not. As our actions and
perspectives are culturally constructed, so is
our moral behavior.

Norms refer to social and cultural regulations

and decrees that govern the everyday activities of
people, inclusive of its moral and ethical
imperatives, customs and cultural practices
(Barker, 2004).
• When we abide by these norms, we are

considered normal, as everybody else, doing

what is normative in the society.
• On the contrary, those who do otherwise are

deemed strange, irrational, or to be blunt

about it, abnormal or deviant, going against
what is socially prescribed.

In the Philippines, one way of looking (at the

problem of) morality is to reflect on the
prevailing norms of right and wrong among
Filipinos (Gorospe, 1966).
• As majority of us adhere to religious ideals,

particularly Christian ones, our concept of

morality hinges from what we have to do as
Christians.
Gorospe lists the following as distinct Filipino
moral norms:

1. Group centeredness or group-think. As

Gorospe explained, “what will others say”
usually determines Filipino moral behavior.
He perfectly calls this as the Filipino’s
“conscience from the outside.”
2. The “Don’t be caught” attitude based
on shame or fear of the authority figure.
3. Complacency when one is aware but is not
concerned. It is an open secret that
corruption is rampant in the government.
Even though we are aware of it, there are still
a lot of Filipinos who do not really mind
about changing the status quo by invoking
their rights of suffrage, but perhaps are just
so indifferent about it.
4. Rationalization. We have that instinct of
justifying an act no matter how wrong it is.
Functions of Culture

Here are some of the functions of culture which

are significant in understanding our moral
behavior:

1. Culture provides identity to the people in

the society. This is what separates communal
groups from each other. They are known by
their distinct traditions and beliefs that they
hold dear.
2. Culture mirrors the laws of the land. Laws
in one society is born out of the norms which
are the socially acceptable behavioral
patterns in the community.
3. Culture unifies people in ways that only
those who belong in that society
understands. It is always what the
communal group invokes in matters of
decisions, practices, and traditions.
4. Culture influences our concept of morality.
Culture provides the rules of the games in the
society through our cultural norms. It is the
 culture that molds, if not dictates, the values
that should be adhered to by the people.

Our moral actions are embedded in the social

structures provided by the traditions of old.
• There is no way that we will decide without

invoking our cultural moral biases.

• How we talk, think, and tap daily judgments is

definitely carved by what we were raised to

believe is morally acceptable or not.

Part 2: Universal Values

We have shared values

but different practices.
Max Scheler’s Value Ethics

• The mind is blind to values – “What is

essential is invisible to the eye. It is only the
heart that one can see rightly.” (The Little
Prince)
• As educators would often say “values are
caught, not taught.”
 • We know a value is a value through the heart,
because we feel it. Of course, we can think of
values, but strictly speaking, what we are
thinking is the concept of value.

• Values for Scheler are qualities, different from

goods or carriers of values. Values in their
essence are objective, eternal, and immutable.
• They are independent of the subject although
“related” to it – and of the social, historical,
contingent factors of the situation/culture.
• Values do not change even if carriers change.

“Kapag hindi pinahalagahan ng tao ang halaga

(Values), hindi nagbabago ang halaga (Values),
ang tagadala ang naiiba.”

Therefore… we have shared values (Universal

Values) inside the culture… but different
practices… We need to respect those differences
because it will lead us to understand a particular
context/culture. Moral character starts from the
beginning – the initial stages of life. According to
numerous studies including Narvaez and
Gleason’s (2013), “Early experience plays a key
role in the development of all body and brain’s
systems and so it necessarily has an influence on
subsequent moral functioning.” Early experience
pertains to perinatal (around the time of birth),
postnatal, and until childhood.

Looking back in that frame of our life, we realize

how vulnerable and dependent we were to the
people around us who may or may not know how
much impact they have on us.
• Trying to know ourselves better, our morals

and values, how we react and respond, we

could try to reminisce who were the people
who took care of us, what treatment, words, or
experiences made much impact on us until
now. (no or not much control of exposure)
• Now that we are in the adult stage of our life,

we need to realize and accept that we have the

power to choose, change, filter, and make our
own decisions regarding the people and
encounters we would want to focus on and use
for our own moral growth.
 • This might not be a walk in the park since it
would entail that we unlearn, relearn, and/or
learn a completely new set of morals.

Part 1: Factors Affecting Moral Character

Development

Moral character is formed by one’s actions. “The

habits, actions, and emotional responses of the
person of good character all are united and
directed toward the moral and the good” (Mitchell,
2015). In order for us to be able to acquire good
habits and values, we have to know what factors
influence our moral character.

Mamawal (1993) listed several agencies of values

formation:
1. Family
2. Biological constitution
3. Peer
4. School, and
5. Community

The family plays a crucial role in the formation of

someone’s moral character. Biological or not, the
family that one considers to have has an immense
impact.
• Modern times also affect the composition of

the family we traditionally have known to be.

• Despite the changes, the adults who are
deemed to be the parents, are still accountable
for the moral development of their child or
children.
• Several factors can affect the values a parent

could teach a child, like socioeconomic status,

culture, age, gender, religion, and education.

The biological factors such as age, sex, and gender,

may also have an impact on the value formation.
• It is supposed that as one grows older, the

moral character one has should also grow or

improve. However, this is not always the case.
• One’s progress in moral development is also

hinged to other factors. One’s sex or gender

would have more impact once it combines
with the other factors that could shape one’s
moral character.

Peers, friends, classmates, and colleagues are also

influencers in our moral character.
 • Parents and teenagers are to be aware that in
the adolescent years, teens are drawn to
spending more time with peers than family.
• The time spent with peers will expose them to
other perspectives and practices. This would
test their existing set of morals. Thus, the
foundation of their moral character formed in
the family should be strong.

Most of a person’s life before adulthood is

commonly spent in school. In this span of time, the
exposure of the students come from the school,
teachers, classmates, lessons in class, and their
peers.
• The school and its teachers could enhance the

students’ moral character.

To be part of a community means to also share

their beliefs and/or practice their traditions or
culture. A community could pertain to a “locality,
neighbourhood, town, city, or even a nation”
(Panopio, 1983).
*** Accessibility to information is a double-edged
sword. It provides the ease of getting information
but not the ease of processing it well.
• Despite the digital divide, many still enjoy and

possibly suffer the plethora of information

given or even forced to be digested by the
sources of information around us.
• Having a quiet time for self-reflection or just to

take a break from the many physical and

psychological noises surrounding us becomes
elusive with the presence of mobile devices
and the fear of missing out.
Part 2: Stages of Moral Development

Developing moral character does not happen

overnight. Mizzoni (2010) stated that “Human
beings are not born with moral virtues.”
• However, if we are aware or made aware, we

have the potential to choose and control our

actions through repetition until they become
habits embedded in our character.
• If the habits we have formed are good, they can

be regarded as virtues and these will be easier

to do and choose when a dilemma arises.
 • It is essential to realize that though it might be
embedded in our character, an intention to
choose and act on it every time is vital.

For morality to be developed, it needs its building

blocks, “Love, hate, values, thoughts, feelings,
emotions, obligations, virtues, and principles ---
the elements of morality --- are in their own way
as real as atoms and electrons” (Holmes, 2007).
• In forming habits, an input is needed to be able

to have a desired output. Input could come

from the various factors and exposures. This is
why Aristotle emphasized the need for a good
role model in developing moral character
(Mizzoni, 2010).

The research of Lawrence Kohlberg, an American

psychologist, though tedious is regarded as simple
and straightforward. He asked his subjects of
varied ages hypothetical dilemmas and their
answers were noted and interpreted. The most
famous story he used was the Heinz Dilemma
(McLeod, 2013):
 Heinz’s wife was dying from a particular type
of cancer. Doctors said a new drug might save
her. The drug had been discovered by a local
chemist, and Heinz tried desperately to buy
some, but the chemist was charging ten times
the money it cost to make the drug, and this
was much more than Heinz could afford.

Heinz could only raise half the money, even

after help from family and friends. He
explained to the chemist that his wife was
dying and asked if he could have the drug
cheaper or pay the rest of the money later. The
chemist refused, saying that he had discovered
the drug and was going to make money from
it. The husband was desperate to save his wife,
so later that night he broke into the chemist’s
lab and stole the drug.

[Then,] Kohlberg asked a 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?

After interpreting and making inferences from the

answers of his subjects, Kohlberg was able to come
up with a Moral Development Theory.
• This presents a six-stage theory involving

three levels of moral reasoning categorizing

progressive change in a person’s moral
development.
• The theory involves three levels of moral

reasoning. Each of the three levels contains

two separate stages:
1. Preconventional (you scratch my back and I
will scratch yours),
2. Conventional (conforming to other’s
expectations, regardless of immediate
consequences), and
3. Post conventional (determine moral values
apart from groups holding them)

Level 1: Preconventional – concerned with

concrete consequences to individuals, focusing on
pursuing concrete interest, while avoiding
sanctions.
• Stage 1: Punishment Orientation (Obey or

Pay/ Authority & Fear): The physical

consequences of an action determine its
goodness or badness regardless of the value of
these consequences. Avoidance of punishment
are regarded as values in their own rights. In
relation to social perspective, what is
considered is simply one’s own interest as
there is still no sense of another’s point of
view.
• Stage 2: Pleasure Orientation (Naively
Egotistical): Relativist orientation. Right
action is viewed as what satisfies one’s own
needs, and occasionally the needs of others.
Thus, each to his own. What is right is what is
fair. You do your thing, I do my thing; we have
fair, equal exchange (instrumental).

Level 2: Conventional – concerned with fulfilling

role expectations, maintaining and supporting the
social order, and identifying persons or groups
involved in this order.
• Stage 3: Peer and Group Acceptance
Orientation (Good Boy-Nice Girl Orientation):
Behavior which pleases or helps others, or is
approved by others, is viewed as good
behavior. One gains acceptance and approval
by being nice. In relation to the social
perspective, one takes the third person
perspective where one knows how the group
will react, is aware of shared feelings,
agreements, group expectations that take
primacy over individual interest.
• Stage 4: Social Structure Orientation
(Authority-Law and Order Orientation): Doing
one’s duty, showing respect for authority, and
following fixed rules is viewed as
demonstrating good behavior. Maintaining the
social order for its own sake, rather than out of
fear of punishment. The social perspective
takes the perspective of a generalized other
and not just the personal other. The
generalized other is the institution, the society
or the church. One sees a given social issue
from the perspective of a fixed system of laws
and beliefs.
Level 3: Postconventional – in this level, there is
the effort to define the moral values and principles
that have validity and application apart from the
authority of groups or persons and the ability to
see beyond laws and norms of society. It is here
that one examines, adopts and applies the
different ethical frameworks or principles.
• Stage 5: Contractual-Legalistic Orientation
(Common Good Principles): Correct action is
viewed in terms of general individual rights
and standards that have been accepted by
society. There is emphasis upon the “legal
point of view.” The social perspective here
views the rights of each as best protected
when stability governs relations, when one
recognizes that moral and legal perspectives
sometimes differ and thus one may question
the legal, because it may not be moral.
• Stage 6: Conscience and Principle Orientation

(Universal Ethical Principles): Kohlberg was

not able to observe this stage in his group, and
thus he projected it. What is right is following
self-chosen principles based on judgments
that are universalizable, irreversible, and
consistent. Included would be universal
abstract principles of justice. The social
perspective taken is the moral point of view
from which even the social arrangements are
derived; from this universalizable moral point
of view, moral judgments are made.