Moral Character Definition

Aristotle: He defines moral virtue as a disposition to behave in the right manner and as a mean between
extremes of deficiency and excess, which are vices.

Psychologist Lawrence Pervin: He defines moral character as "a disposition to express behavior in
consistent patterns of functions across a range of situations"

Other Definition: moral character is the existence or lack of virtues such as integrity, courage,
fortitude, honesty and loyalty

How is Moral Character Developed?

There are several philosophical views on how a person’s moral character was developed. From this,
researchers, come up with four theories: (1) External/Social, (2) Internal, (3) Interactional, and (4)
Personality/Identity.

a. External/Social. There are two theories that view human nature: as neutral (a blank
slate) and subject to change by the environment.
From an operant conditioning perspective (Skinner, 1971), all behavior, including moral
behavior, is the result of the application of environmental consequences (Gerwitz & Peláez-
Nogueras, 1991; Peláez-Nogueras & Gewirtz, 1995; Wynne, 1986). When parents, educators, or
other social agents reward desired behavior, it increases; when they punish undesired behavior,
it decreases.
Sociologists also view the individual as a blank slate but see morality and character as
being imbedded in society and culture. They focus more on the values, mores, norms, and moral
exemplars in the environment rather than in the application of personal consequences. They
emphasize the transmission of moral norms and expectations from one generation to the next
(Haste, 1998) through modeling and explaining (Durkheim, 1961).
b. Internal. There are two major theories that focus on genetic and maturational
influences on character development: nativism and sociobiology.
Nativists philosophers like Rousseau (1979) believe that human nature is essentially good
and that unhealthy social influences should not be allowed to thwart the natural development of
the child’s predispositions to think, feel, and act morally.
Sociobiology also focuses on genetic and maturational influences on morality. Clark and
Grunstein state that “behavior (just like anatomy and physiology) is in large part inherited and…
every organism acts (consciously or not) to enhance its inclusive fitness--to increase the
frequency and distribution of its selfish genes in future generations”. Another basically
physiological theory focuses on an innate human cognitive processing ability and suggests that
children develop a sense of right and wrong and moral values through an analysis of competing
alternatives.
c. Interactional.
From the psychoanalytic perspective, human nature is instinctually anti-social and
undeveloped and must be corrected and socialized (Freud, 1990). However, human intention and
agency are the result of internal forces and unconscious intention. Therefore, moral character
development is a constant struggle between biological predispositions to act selfishly and
aggressively and social pressures to act in a prosocial manner.
Erikson (1993), who took exception to Freud’s (1990) focus on biological instincts,
proposed that personality was a product of social and emotional development with social
demands posing a series of crises that must be resolved.
 d. Personality/Identity.
A final theoretical category is labeled the “virtues” approach. As personality constructs,
virtues are habitual ways of thinking, feeling, committing, and acting that reflect moral character.
Erikson (1994) and Blasi (1993) suggest that virtues are the dominant aspect of moral identity.
Walker (2002b) also identified clusters of attributes or themes that contribute to people’s
understanding of morality. The “principled-idealistic” theme concerns notions of justice, acting
according to principle, and rationality; the “dependable-loyal” theme involves the development of
interpersonal relations; the “caring-trustworthy” theme addresses interpersonal warmth; the
“confidence” theme concerns the extent to which one demonstrates personal agency.
Stilwell and her team provide another multi-modal view. She focuses on moral motivation
and proposes that children develop it within four domains of human experience:
1. attachment bond with parents—children learn about compliance and respect;
2. moral-emotional responsiveness—children learn about the ways in which emotions
regulate moral life, including reparation and healing responses after wrongdoing;
3. moral valuation—children learn about the developmental processes of deriving and
justifying moral rules in behalf of values; and
4. moral volition—children learn about the ways in which autonomy and will become
associated with what should be done.

STAGES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT

According to Lawrence Kohlberg’s Theory, there three (3) levels of moral development and under this
level, there are six (6) stages on how they were developed.

Level 1. Pre-conventional Morality. At this level, the child is responsive to cultural rules and labels of
good and bad, right or wrong, but he interprets the labels in terms of either the physical or hedonistic
consequences of action (punishment, reward, exchange of favors) or the physical power of those who
enunciate the rules and labels. The level is divided into the following stages:

a. Stage 1 - Obedience and Punishment. The earliest stage of moral development is

especially common in young children, but adults are also capable of expressing this type
of reasoning. At this stage, children see rules as fixed and absolute. Obeying the rules is
important because it is a means to avoid punishment.
b. Stage 2 - Individualism and Exchange. At this stage of moral development, children
account for individual points of view and judge actions based on how they serve
individual needs. In the Heinz dilemma, children argued that the best course of action
was the choice that best-served Heinz’s needs. Reciprocity is possible, but only if it
serves one's own interests.

Level 2. Conventional Morality. At this level, the individual perceives the maintenance of the
expectations of his family, group, or nation as valuable, regardless of immediate and obvious
consequences. The attitude is not only one of conformity to personal expectations and social order, but
of loyalty to it, of actively maintaining, supporting, and justifying the order and identifying with the
persons or group involved in it. The level consists of the following two stages:

c. Stage 3 - Interpersonal Relationships. Often referred to as the "good boy-good girl"

orientation, this stage of moral development is focused on living up to social expectations
and roles. There is an emphasis on conformity, being "nice," and consideration of how
choices influence relationships.
 d. Stage 4 - Maintaining Social Order. At this stage of moral development, people begin
to consider society as a whole when making judgments. The focus is on maintaining law
and order by following the rules, doing one’s duty and respecting authority.

Level 3. Post-conventional Morality. The individual makes a clear effort to define moral values and
principles that have validity and application apart from the authority of the groups of persons holding
them and apart from the individual's own identification with the group. The level has the two following
stages:

e. Stage 5 - Social Contract and Individual Rights. At this stage, people begin to
account for the differing values, opinions and beliefs of other people. Rules of law are
important for maintaining a society, but members of the society should agree upon
these standards.
f. Stage 6 - Universal Principles. Kolhberg’s final level of moral reasoning is based
upon universal ethical principles and abstract reasoning. At this stage, people follow
these internalized principles of justice, even if they conflict with laws and rules.

On the other hand, Jean Piaget’s Theory about moral development has only two stages: The
Heteronomous Morality, and the Autonomous Reality.

1. Heteronomous Morality. This stage is also known as the moral realism which means morality
imposed from the outside. In this stage of moral development, children follow strict rules
and are completely obedient to authority. They tend to accept these rules and
disobeying these rules may result them to punishment.
According to Piaget, this happens to young children since their cognitive is
being developed.
Children in this stage are also judge how wrong a particular action is by its immediate
consequences; negative consequences or punishment is seen as an automatic
response to breaking a rule. Piaget also noted that social relationships between adults
and children also supported this stage: adults have a natural authority over children
of a young age, and power and rules are handed down without discussion.

2. Autonomous Reality. This stage is also known as moral relativism which means
morality based on your own rules . In this stage, Piaget states that children learn how
to critically evaluate rules and apply them based on cooperation and respect with
other children.
Piaget believed that around the age of 9-10 children’s understanding of moral
issues underwent a fundamental reorganisation. By now they are beginning to
overcome the egocentrism of middle childhood and have developed the ability to see
moral rules from other people’s point of view. Children begin to judge how wrong an
action is by the intention of the perpetrator, and punishment is adjusted accordingly.
g.
References:

https://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/aristotle/section8/

https://www.everydayhealth.com/healthy-living/person-moral-character/

http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/papers/chardev.pdf

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3d78/73858d76dbd4237d0b5647046d2701703214.pdf

https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.naswaz.com/resource/resmgr/imported/EthicsKohlbergMoralDevelopment.p
df

https://classroom.synonym.com/piagets-twostage-theory-moral-development-8773060.html

https://www.simplypsychology.org/piaget-moral.html