Republic of the Philippines

BOHOL ISLAND STATE UNIVERSITY

Main Campus
C.P.G. Avenue, Tagbilaran City, Bohol 6300
Vision : A premiere S & T University for the formation of a world – class and virtuous human resource for sustainable development of Bohol and the country.
Mission : BISU is committed to provide quality higher education in the arts and sciences, as well as in the professional and technological fields; undertake research and
development, and extension services for the sustainable development of Bohol and the country.

Module II – Culture and the Moral Agent

Lesson 4: The Moral Agent: Developing Virtue as Habit

Learning Objectives:
At the end of this lesson, the students should be able to:
1. discuss thoroughly the meaning of moral agent;
2. distinguish the stages of moral development; and
3. articulate how a moral agent develops virtue.

Key Reading:
Parthemore, J. and Whitby, B. “What makes any agent a moral agent?: Reflections on
machine consciousness and moral agency,” in International Journal of Machine Consciousness,
5(2): 2013, 105-129.
In this paper, we take moral agency to be that context in which a particular agent can,
appropriately, be held responsible for her actions and their consequences. In order to
understand moral agency, we will discuss what it would take for an artifact to be a moral agent.
For reasons that will become clear over the course of the paper, we take the artifactual question
to be a useful way into discussion but ultimately misleading. We set out a number of conceptual
pre-conditions for being a moral agent and then outline how one should –- and should not –- go
about attributing moral agency. In place of a litmus test for such an agency –- such as Allen et
al.'s Moral Turing Test –- we suggest some tools from the conceptual spaces theory and the
unified conceptual space theory for mapping out the nature and extent of that agency.

Introduction
Charles Taylor’s claim that personhood consists in its relation to moral goods and
commitments, and that persons are moral agents, is summarized and examined. According to
this view, persons not only have an understanding of themselves as moral agents, they are
partially constituted by this understanding. It is argued that as moral agents, persons are
capable of effecting changes in their lives through enacting understandings of the good.
Moreover, they have the capacity not only to adopt and wield social and cultural moral practices,
but also to revise and transform them. Particular features of human psychology and its
 2

development are discussed that assist in clarifying the relation between persons and moral
agency. Further, it is suggested that moral development might be understood as the gradual
process whereby traditions are interpreted and reinterpreted toward the end of fashioning more
virtuous persons.

The Moral Agent

In his book Animals & Ethics: An Overview of the Philosophical Debate, Taylor Angus
asserts that “Moral agency is an individual's ability to make moral judgments based on some
notion of right and wrong and to be held accountable for these actions.” This is to say that moral
agency can only be attributed to human beings who can be held responsible for their actions
and not to other species of animals known to have a bit of intelligence (e.g. dog, dolphin,
chimpanzee, etc.). But can all human beings be moral agents? Do all have the capability to be
accountable for any morally implicated actions?
Moral agency basically depends on the degree of the mental capacity and
willfulness of the person who does the action. In such case, we can say that there are certain
individuals who cannot be moral agents and subsequently cannot be morally responsible for
their actions, either brutally (evil) or kindly (good) done in certain circumstances. These are
those moral judgments which are distorted due to the absence of intellect or will, or both intellect
and will. Such as, children below the age of reason and adults with certain mental disabilities
due to some factors like senility, Down syndrome, high degree of imbecility, and others may
have no capacity to be moral agents. However, in some instances, adults with full mental
capacity may also not be morally liable of their actions, especially when their intellect and will, or
voluntariness is disturbed, or when they abandon their moral agency due to life-threatening
situations, like to kill a person as a mere self-defense (this will be discussed further in Part III).
To sum up, a moral agent is no other than a person who has the capability to
determine right and good, wrong and bad actions. As Angus puts it, a moral agent is "a
being who is capable of acting with reference to right and wrong." And this is the one who can
be held accountable her own actions. In general, these are those who have moral
responsibility not to cause unjustified harm to others and to the environment which surely can
affect the others.

Theoretical Perspective of Lawrence Kohlberg’s Moral Development

One way of understanding the concept of moral development is through the contribution
of the works of Kohlberg. An overview of their frameworks will be presented in this section.
However, let one put to mind that theories such as that of Kohlberg is proposed elucidation for a
class of phenomena. It is not something to be taken as final and absolute. However, his theories
may help one understand how an individual develops and nurtures her moral life. Let me now
develop Kohlberg’s moral development frameworks.
 3

Lawrence Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development

Lawrence Kohlberg was a professor at Harvard University. He began as a
developmental psychologist and then moved to the field of education. He was influenced by the
Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget, who is famous for his theory on moral development of children
(Doorey, 2012). Kohlberg was particularly well-known for his theory of moral development which
he popularized through research studies at Harvard’s Center for Moral Education.
Kohlberg’s theory was derived from interviews conducted on boys distributed from early
childhood to late adolescence. In these interviews, he asked participants to respond to
hypothetical ethical dilemmas (Heinz dilemma), such as a man considering stealing a drug to
save his dying wife because he cannot afford the drug and has exhausted other possibilities for
paying it. The result of the interviews shows a pattern of responses which suggested a
progression in moral reasoning (Doorey, 2012). As a consequence, Kohlberg thought that moral
development involves process and time, and that people progressed in their moral reasoning
through a series of stages.
Kohlberg then came up with six stages of moral development, which, according to
Doorey (2012) could be more generally classified into three levels. The formulation of
Kohlberg’s theory is shown in the table below. As we can see, the six stages of moral
development are divided into three levels and each level has two stages, each of which has a
corresponding social orientation.

Fig. 4: The table orderly illustrates Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development

LEVEL STAGE SOCIAL ORIENTATION

Punishment; Authority
– Obey or pay
Stage 1
– Authority – Fear
Pre-conventional

(Self-focused) Pleasure Orientation

Stage 2 – Self-satisfaction

– “What’s in it for me?”

Peer and Group Acceptance

– Approval-Group Norms
Stage 3
– Loyalty-Belonging
Conventional
(Group-focused)
Legalistic Orientation
– Law and Order
Stage 4
– Duty to Society
 4

Common Good
– Standards of Society
Stage 5
– Social Contract
Post-conventional
(Universal focused)
Universal Principles
– Decision of Conscience
Stage 6
– Logical Moral Principles

Chart (2016): Adapted from the notes of Prof. Dennis Temporal during the General Education Training for
Trainees (CHED-Ateneo Ethics Course) last October 2016 in Ateneo de Manila University.

Let me explain each stage below.

Pre-conventional Level
The pre-conventional level, which is focused more on the self, is concerned with the
consequences of one’s action. According to Prof. Dennis Temporal, this level simply pursues its
own interest while at the same time avoids sanctions. Here, the child would base her judgment
on the external consequences (punishment and reward) of her action having no concept of the
society’s conventions on what is right and wrong. At this level, obedience is based on authority
(“Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development,” article online). And according to Kohlberg, there
are two stages in this level.
The first stage is concerned with punishment and authority. Here, the child behaves
according to socially acceptable rules or norms because she is told to do so by some authority
figure like her parents, teachers, pastors or clergy and elders in the community. According to
Kohlberg (1987, 7), the child obeys the rules in order to avoid punishment. But Kohlberg argues
that her obedience to the rules should be a result of a better decision rather than just mere
conformism.
The second stage is concerned with pleasure orientation. Kohlberg observes that people
behave in the right way because they thought that doing so means acting in one’s own interest.
Hence, as Kohlberg sees it, one obeys the norms because it is beneficial to her. Here, decisions
are made based on the rewards one can receive in doing an action by following rules
(“Lawrence Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development”).
Conventional Level
The conventional level, which is focused more on the group, is concerned with societal
relationship, with emphasis on social conformity (Burkhardt and Nathaniel, 2002). According to
Kohlberg, people in this level are more concerned with the opinions of others. Here, moral
decisions are based on what the others may say. According to Kohlberg, the third and fourth
stages of moral development belong to this level.
The third stage is concerned with peer and group acceptance. This stage, according to
Kohlberg, is characterized by a behavior which seeks to do what will gain the approval of peers.
Hence, Kohlberg says that the reactions of others are somehow the basis for decision-making
 5

and behavior. For this reason, peer and group acceptance become the rule of the day so that an
individual retains relationships with others.
The fourth stage is concerned with the legalistic orientation. This stage, according to
Kohlberg, is characterized by obedience to the law, responding to the obligations of duty, and
respect of those in authority (Burkhardt and Nathaniel, 2002; “Lawrence Kohlberg’s Stages of
Moral Development”). Hence, this stage emphasizes the upholding of the law, order, doing
one’s duty, and obeying social norms. Kohlberg believes that this stage is important because
there is a higher value in obeying the law than by simply seeking the approval of one’s peers.
Post-conventional Level
The post-conventional level, which is focused on the common good and universal moral
principles is the most challenging one (Zecha and Weingartner, 1987, ix). According to Kohlberg
(1987), persons at this level make judgment based on impartial universal moral principles, even
when these judgments may conflict with societal standards. At this level, a person does not
consider rules and laws as absolute but a relative one. Hence, in this level, laws and rules will
only be considered as significant mechanism for maintaining harmony and order in the society.
According to Kohlberg, the fifth and sixth stages belong to this level.
The fifth stage is concerned with the common good. In fact, as Kohlberg (1987) says,
this stage is anchored on the understanding of social mutuality and genuine interest in the
welfare of others. Here, laws and rules are considered as social contracts and these are for the
good of the community and for equal protections of individual rights (Kohlberg, 1987, 9). For this
reason, laws can only be accepted or approved relative to the common good of the society.
The last stage is concerned with respect for universal principle, such as the principles of
justice, dignity, and equality. That is why, for Kohlberg, the basis of one’s action is not just the
common good or a social contract, but a deeper universal principles. Hence, according to
Kohlberg, moral decision is not just based on the laws and rules of the society, but on one’s
conscience.
As mentioned above, individuals grow and develop in progression, that is, from one
stage to another. It is important to note that for Kohlberg, an individual cannot just jump from
stage one to, say, stage four without passing through stages two and three. Thus, for Kohlberg,
one’s moral development is linear and is ordered hierarchically (Burkhardt and Nathaniel, 2002).

Development of Virtue
It is important to consider that moral character is not something that is imposed from the
outside, but something that springs from the will of the moral agent. Hence, a moral character
develops as she grows into maturity. This is further explained through the virtue ethics
approach. As will be discussed later, virtue ethics represents the concept that individual’s
actions are based upon inner moral virtue. As we may already know, Aristotle was the leading
figure in virtue ethics. In fact, virtue is a central concept in his Nicomachean Ethics. Now, in
virtue ethics, one does not ask the question, “what morally ought we to do?”; rather, virtue ethics
posits that the basic function of morality is the moral character of persons (Beauchamp,
2001). In relation to this, Beauchamp suggests that virtue should not be thought of as a moral
 6

requirement, because this confuses with a principle or rule. Rather, virtue is a character trait that
is socially valued.
As we can see later, Aristotle considered goodness of character as a product of the
practice of virtuous behavior. This means that for Aristotle, virtuous acts are not the end
results of a good character. In fact, according to Aristotle, virtues are tendencies to act, to
feel, and judge, tendencies which are developed from natural capacity through proper training
and exercise (Yarza, 179). He believed, therefore, that practice creates a habit of acting in a
virtuous way. Again, it is for this reason that virtue is something that can be learned and
improved (Yarza, 179).
It is important to note that for Aristotle, virtue depends on “clear judgment, self-control,
symmetry of desire, and artistry of means” (Durant, 1926, 75). Hence, virtue can be viewed as a
fruit of intelligent pursuit. The virtue of excellence, for example, can be achieved by training and
habituation, and that a virtuous character is created by repeatedly acting in a virtuous manner.
Now, because for Aristotle virtue is a product of development, then we can conclude that
a good behavior comes naturally. For this reason, Aristotle believes that each individual
person has a built-in desire to be virtuous. Thus, according to Aristotle, if a person focuses
on being good, the right actions follow without much effort and she will do good things. But what
does it mean to be a good person? For Aristotle, thing has an essence. This essence is the
proper functioning of a thing. And if this thing properly functioned, then it is good. This is
because, for Aristotle, anything that fulfills its intended function is good. Applied to humans, a
human person is good if she fulfills what nature expects of her.
But how can a person be virtuous? It is important to note that a virtuous behavior for
Aristotle means practicing moderation; that is, avoiding both excess and deficiency (Temporal,
Notes, 2016. See also the chapter on Aristotle’s virtue ethics). Aristotle calls this the doctrine of
the mean. This “doctrine of the mean” is a principle that suggests that a moral behavior is one
that is in the middle of two extremes. For example, between gain and disadvantage is justice,
and between shameless and touchiness is modesty (Temporal). Indeed, moral virtue can be
defined simply as the just mean.

Analysis
If anything, what then are the implications of the theory of Aristotle on character
development and that of Kohlberg’s view on the moral development of the human person? What
is the relevance of understanding or knowing the moral character and moral development?
The notion discussed above would lead one to obtain the knowledge on the dynamics of
morality specifically on the moral agent. And one way to understand the moral agent is to begin
by knowing what is character and its development and how this character affects one’s moral
decision. Aristotle’s theory on character begins with the idea that as a rational animal capable of
decision making, the human person has to decide morally one way or the other. One’s decision,
according to Aristotle, is influenced by one’s character. And if one recognizes that a moral act is
something that would eventually lead to a better life in the society, then that person would be
willing to do such act. In fact, as Aristotle argues, a virtuous man wants to do good because
 7

that is what her inclinations and desires dictate her to do. Thus, a virtuous individual is one
who does the right thing based on moderation. And she will be cautious not falling into two
extremes, that is, excess and deficiency.
Moreover, another way to understand the dynamics of morality is to understand the
moral development of the human person. Kohlberg offers us the framework of moral
development that focuses on man’s moral development. This framework is appropriated in
order to understand the two modes of thinking in relation to moral decision making process of
the individual.
As we already know, Kohlberg talks about three different stages of moral development. He
affirms that these stages are hierarchical and in the process of development, one cannot just
proceed to a higher stage without passing through the lower ones. As an implication of such a
theory, one realizes that as one matures in age and wisdom, one also matures in moral decision
making. However, one’s moral development takes time. It is not something that is done in few
years. Indeed, the stages in Kohlberg’s theory suggest that moral development is not an
overnight process. It is a life-long process. It is something that an individual should work on
everyday of her life. As one matures and grows in wisdom, a moral agent has to expand her
moral horizon, that is, from simple fear and avoidance of punishment towards the highest stage
which is based on universal principles. But at the end of the day, the moral agent has to be
responsible whatever stage one reached.
In the end, however, it must be noted that Aristotle and Kohlberg’s theory of moral
development should be viewed simply as guideposts in moral decision making; they should not
be taken as absolute. One reason for this is that there are quite a number of famous theories of
moral development out there. But I chose Aristotle and Kohlberg because I believe that their
theories are the most appropriate in this context.

Online Activity:

1. Please open these three (3) YouTube links: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBop4yfH4pg;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bounwXLkme4; and https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=PrvtOWEXDIQ. Watch carefully these videos in order to have a thorough understanding of
Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development and Aristotle’s virtue ethics.

ASSIGNMENT #4

(Submit your answer in our google classroom)

1. Briefly summarize the contents of the YouTube videos on the links above.