Lesson II: The Moral Agent

Developing Virtue as Habit

Moral Character refers to the existence

or lack of virtues as integrity, courage,
fortitude, honesty, and loyalty.
 1. Moral Character and Virtue
The term “character” is derived from the Greek
word “charakter”, which was initially used as a
mark impressed upon a coin. The word character
later came to mean a distinct mark by which one
thing was distinguished from others, and then
chiefly to mean the assemblage of qualities that
distinguish one person from another.
This Stress on distinctiveness or individuality
tends to merge “character” with “personality” in
the modern usage.
 “Moral Character”, therefore, in philosophical
sense, refers to having or lacking moral virtue.
 2. The Circular Relation of Acts and
Character
In the process of moral development, there is the
relation between acts that build character and moral
character itself. Not all acts help to build moral
character, but those acts which emanate from
characters certainly matter in moral development.
 Virtuous traits of character ought to be stable
and enduring and are not mere products of
fortune, but of learning, constant practice, and
cultivation. But we have to add that virtuous traits
of character are called excellences of human
being because they are the best exercise of
reason, which is the activity characteristic of
human beings. In this sense, the Greek moralists
believe, virtuous acts complete or perfect human
life.
 3. Moral Characters as Dispositions

The moral character traits that constitute a person’s

moral character are characteristically understood as
behavioral and affective dispositions.
Among human beings, moral character traits, either
virtues or vices, are also considered as dispositions. Moral
character traits are those dispositions of character for
which it is suitable to hold agents morally responsible.
In other words, a good moral character is practically a
disposition to do virtuous acts. Oppositely, a bad moral
character is, in effect, a disposition to do virtuous deeds.
4. Six Stages of Moral Development

The American psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg

(1927-1987) is best known for his theory of stages of
moral development. In principle, he agreed with
the Swiss clinical psychologist Jean Piaget’s (1896-
1980) theory of moral development but wanted to
develop his ideas further.
Level 1 – Pre-conventional morality
Stage 1. Obedience and Punishment
Orientation
Stage 2. Individualism and Exchange
Level 2 – Conventional morality
Stage 3. Good Interpersonal Relationships
Stage 4. Maintaining the Social Order
Level 3 – Post-conventional morality
Stage 5. Social Contract and Individual Rights
Stage 6. Universal Principles
 Level Age Range
Level I: Seen in preschool children,
Preconventional most elementary school
Morality students, some junior high
school students, and a
new high school students
Level II: Seen in a few older
Conventional elementary school
Morality students, some junior high
students, and many high
school students (Stage 4
typically does not appear
until the high school years)
Stage Nature of Moral Reasoning
Stage 1: People make decisions based on what is
Punishment- best for themselves, without regard for
avoidance other’s needs or feelings. They obey rules
and only if established by more powerful
obedience individuals; they may disobey if they aren’t
likely to get caught. “Wrong” behaviors are
those that will be punished.
Stage 2: People recognize that others also have
Exchange of need. They may try to satisfy other’s needs if
favors their own need are also met (“you scratch
my back, I’ll scratch yours”). They continue
to define right and wrong primarily in terms of
consequences to themselves.
Stage 3: People make decisions based on what
Good actions will please others, especially authority
boy/girl figures and other individuals with high status
(e.g., teacher, popular peers). They
concerned about maintaining relationships
through sharing trust, and loyalty, and they
take other people’s perspective and
intention to account when making decisions.
 Level Age Range Stage Nature of Moral Reasoning
Stage 4: People look to society as a whole for guidelines
Law and about right or wrong. They know rules are
order necessary for keeping society running smoothly
and believe it is their “duty” to obey them.
However, they perceive rules to be inflexible; they
don’t necessarily recognize that as society’s needs
change, rules should change as well.
Level III: Rarely seen before Stage 5: People recognize that rules represent agreements
Postconventional college (Stage 6 is Social among many individuals about appropriate
Morality extremely rare even in contract behavior. Rules are seen as potentially useful
mechanisms that can maintain the general social
adults)
order and protect individual rights, rather than as
absolute dictates that must be obeyed simply
because they are “the law.” People also
recognize the flexibility of rules; rules that no longer
serve society’s best interests can and should be
changed.
Stage 6: Stage 6 is a hypothetical, “ideal” stage that few
Universal people ever reach. People in this stage adhere to
ethical a few abstract, universal principles (e.g., equality
of all people, respect for human dignity,
principle
commitment to justice) that transcend specific
norms and rules. They answer to a strong inner
conscience and willingly disobey laws that violate
their own ethical principles.
 5. Getting to the Highest Level,
Conscience-Based Moral Decisions
Stage 1: Respect for power and punishment
Motto: “Might makes right”

Stage 2: Looking out for #1

 Motto: : “What’s in it for me?”

Stage 3: Being a “Good Boy” or “Nice Girl”

Motto: “I want to be nice”
 5. Getting to the Highest Level,
Conscience-Based Moral Decisions
Stage 4: Law and order thinking
Motto: “I’ll do my duty”

Stage 5: Justice through democracy

 Motto: “I’ll live by rules or try to change
them”

Stage 6: Deciding on basic moral principle by

which you will live your life and relate to
everyone fairly
Motto; “I will subscribe to the Golden Rule
or act on my own values”
6. Problems with Kohlberg’s Theory

It must be noted, nonetheless, that not all

ethicists accept Kohlberg’s theory on moral
development. Some argue that his mentioned
dilemmas are artificial, that is, they lack ecological
validity. In the Hienz dilemma, for instance,
Kohlberg’s subjects were aged between 10 and
16, have never been married, and so not credible
to answer whether or not Heinz should steal the
drug.