THE STAGES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT

Moral development- the process through which a human person gains his/her beliefs, skills, and
dispositions that make him/her a morally mature person.

Three stages of moral development:

 The Amoral Stage- egocentric, hedonist, and prudential considerations

 The pre-moral stage- authoritarian, ego-idealist, social and reciprocal considerations.
 The moral stage- personal, autonomous, altruistic, rational, independent, and responsible
considerations.

KOHLBERG’S STAGES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT- describes the stages of moral development in 3

stages.

Level 1 – Pre-conventional morality- the lowest level of moral development in Kohlberg’s theory. At
this level, children don’t have a personal code of morality. Instead, their moral code is controlled by
the standards of adults and the consequences of following or breaking adult’s rules. Authority is
outside the individual and reasoning is based on the physical consequences of actions. There is no
internalization of moral values.

Stage 1. Obedience and Punishment Orientation- the child does good to avoid being
punished, if the child were punished he must done something wrong. Children obey because adults
tell them to obey. Moral decisions are based on fear of punishment. It is a matter of obeying or
getting a punishment.

Stage 2. Instrumental Orientation- right behavior is defined by whatever the individual

believes to be in his best interest. In this stage, there is limited interest in the needs of others, only
to the point where it might further the individual’s own interest. (Reward for doing the household
chore)

Level 2 – Conventional- a child’s sense of morality is tied to persona and societal relationships.
Children continue to accept the rules of authority figures, but this is now due to their belief that this
is necessary to ensure positive relationships and societal order.

Stage 3. “Good Boy, Nice Girl Orientation”- children want the approval of others and act in
ways to avoid disapproval. Emphasis is placed on good behavior and people being “nice” to others.
The individual is good in order to be seen as being a good person by others (politicians in times of
calamities).

Stage 4. Law and Order Orientation- the child becomes aware of the wider rules of society,
so judgments concern obeying the rules in order to uphold the law and avoid guilt.

Level 3 – Post-conventional Morality- this is the level of full internalization. Morality is completely
internalized and not based on external standards. Individual judgment is based on self-chosen
principles and moral reasoning is based on individual rights and justice.

Stage 5. Social contract orientation- the child becomes aware that while rules/laws might
exist for the good of the greatest number, there are times when they will work against the interest
of particular individuals.
 Stage 6. Universal, ethical, principle orientation. Individuals at this stage have developed
their own set of moral guidelines which may or may not fit the law. They have developed moral
judgments that are based on universal human rights.

ACT OF MAN VERSUS HUMAN ACT

Not all acts of the human person as a moral agent are considered human acts. Some may be
classified as acts of man.

Human Acts- a man is a master, and he has the power to do or not do as he pleases. Also, human
acts are the acts of a moral agent. (diet, tutoring learners, and preparing for board exams)

Acts of Man- It is also an “action committed by unconscious and insane persons, infants, or by those
who are physically forced to do something”

- Actions that merely happen in the body or through the body without the awareness
of the mind or the control of the will are not human acts but merely acts of man
(breathing, blinking, etc.)

THE DETERMINANTS OF THE MORALITY OF HUMAN ACT

According to Rev. Coppens, to know whether an individual human act is morally good, there are
three things to be considered:

The Object of an act is the act itself. In reality. It is not distinct from the act itself; for we cannot act
without doing something, and that thing that is done, is the object of the act; say going, eating,
praising, etc.

The end, or purpose intended by the agent is the second determinant of an act’s morality. The end
here spoken of is not the end of the work, for that pertains to the object, but the end of the
workman or agent (e.g. Robin Hood). Always remember that the end does not justify the means.

The circumstances of time, place, and persons have their part in determining the morality of an
individual act. The moral character of an act may be affected by attendant circumstances, and an act
good in itself may be evil when accompanied by certain circumstances.

ACCOUNTABILITY OF MORAL ACT

There are three bases for moral accountability:

An act must be with Knowledge- that is, you are in possession of a normal mind; you are not insane
or totally ignorant, sleep-walking, etc… Knowledge is the awareness of or familiarity with a fact,
situation, or truth, unveiled through experience or disclosed in dialogue or encounter with persons
or things. To have genuine knowledge, your mind must be normal, not impaired or vitiated, by
mental condition or ignorance.

The act is freely done- this happens when you can exercise your power of choice. If the act you
intend to do is a choice between stealing or not to steal, then you must have the freedom to choose
which to do. Your freedom should not be impaired by an irresistible force or fear.

The act must be voluntary- that is, the act is either intentional or negligent. An act is voluntarily
intended when it is done with the aim, purpose, or goal of attaining a result.

Ultimately, it can be said that your degree of moral accountability depends on the degree or extent
of knowledge, freedom, and voluntariness.
MODIFIERS OF HUMAN ACT

There are various factors that either increase or decrease accountability. They are called modifiers of
human acts.

Ignorance- is the “absence of knowledge.” traditional ethics classifies them as vincible, invincible,
affected, and supine or gross ignorance. Ignorance of the law or of the facts is either invincible or
vincible. The latter is said to be gross or supine when scarcely an effort has been made to remove it;
and if a person deliberately avoids enlightenment in order to sin more freely, his ignorance is
affected.

Passion- refers to emotions like love, desire, hatred, horror, sadness, fear, and anger. In criminal law,
the commission of a criminal act “with passion and obfuscation” means the perpetrator is blinded by
his emotions lessening his accountability from maximum to medium or from medium to maximum.

Fear- is the disturbance of the mind of a person due to an impending danger or harm to himself or
loved ones. Acts done with fear in voluntary, but acts done because of intense or uncontrollable fear
or panic are involuntary.

Violence- refers to any physical force exerted on a person by another free agent for the purpose of
compelling said person to act against his will. Actions performed by a person subjected to violence
or irresistible force are involuntary and not accountable.

REASON AND IMPARTIALITY AS MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR MORALITY

The minimum requirements of morality are reason and impartiality. Morality requires the impartial
consideration of each individual’s interests. Moral judgments, or resolving a dilemma of moral
judgments must be backed by good reason.

Scott Rae’s 7 Steps of Moral Reasoning

 Gather the facts and information. The simplest way of clarifying an ethical dilemma is to
make sure the facts are clear.
 Determine the ethical issues, similar to the “statement of the problem.” Moral values and
virtues must support competing interests in order for an ethical dilemma to exist. If you
cannot identify the underlying values/virtues then you do not have an ethical dilemma.
 Determine what virtues/principles have a bearing on the case. In an ethical dilemma,
certain values and principles are central to the competing positions. Determine if some
should be given more weight than others.
 List the alternatives or develop a list of options. Creatively determine possible courses of
action for your dilemma. Some will almost immediately be discarded but generally the more
you list the greater the potential for coming up with a really good one.
 Compare the alternatives with the virtues/principles. This step eliminates alternatives as
they are weighed by the moral principles that have a bearing on the case.
 Consider the consequences or test the options. If you disclose the information directly
possible consequences include – the family feeling alienated, cultural values have been
 violated, the family may take the patient to another hospital, a patient may give up, or the
patient might be happy they are finally being told the truth.
 Make a decision. Ethical decisions rarely have pain-free solutions – it might be you have to
choose the solution with the least number of problems/painful consequences. Even when
making a good decision you might still lose sleep over it.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REASON AND WILL

The moral person is endowed with an intellect and will.

Reason- conducts the study, research, and investigation, fact-finding. It uses logic, and the principle
of consistency, and avoids fallacious reasoning to come up with a truthful and accurate proposition.

Will- the faculty of the mind that is associated with decision-making. It’s the one that says yes or no.
Decision making which is an activity of the will can be developed. Early in life, like children, one
should already be given the opportunity to exercise his will, like being trained to make choices from
alternatives.

Free will- the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded, the power
or right to act, speak, or think as one wants. It is the power of self-determination. When the will is
free, there is freedom.