CALUNSAG, HAZEL KATE

BSN 2B
MORAL CHARACTER
Moral character can be conceptualized as an individual’s disposition to think, feel, and behave in
an ethical versus unethical manner, or as the subset of individual differences relevant to
morality. This definition of moral character is adapted from Funder and Fast’s definition of
personality: “An individual’s characteristic patterns of thought, emotion, and behavior, together
with the psychological mechanisms—hidden or not—behind those patterns.” Moral character is
defined as an idea in which one is unique and can be distinguished from others. it can assemble
qualities and traits that are different from various individuals. It implies to how individuals act,
or how they express themselves. In another words, it is “human excellence,” or unique thoughts
of a character.
The Greek word used by Aristotle and most commonly translated as virtue is aretē, which is
perhaps better translated as "goodness" or "excellence." In general, an excellence is a quality
that makes an individual a good member of its kind. An excellence, therefore, is a property
whereby its possessor operates well or fulfills its function. Along these same lines, it is helpful to
think of excellences as defining features of one's character. Aristotle, for instance, sometimes
speaks of a good moral character as "human excellence" or an "excellence of soul"
(Nicomachean Ethics I.13). The idea here is having a good moral character helps its possessor
operate well and live up to her potential, thereby fulfilling her nature.
Aristotle’s ethics is largely concerned with the question of what promotes human happiness or
flourishing and leads to a fuller and happier human life. (The Greek word for happiness that
Aristotle uses, eudaimonia, can also be translated as ‘‘flourishing’’ or ‘‘well-being.’’) Virtues and
vices are understood precisely within this context. Virtues are those strengths or excellences of
character that promote human flourishing, and vices are those weaknesses of character that
impede flourishing.
The subject of moral character belongs to virtue theory more generally, which is the
philosophical examination of notions related to the virtues. Roger Crisp distinguishes virtue
ethics and virtue theory as follows: "Virtue theory is the area of inquiry concerned with the
virtues in general; virtue ethics is narrower and prescriptive, and consists primarily in the
advocacy of the virtues" (Crisp 1998, 5). Virtue ethics is a sub-species of virtue theory insofar as
the former attempts to base ethics on evaluation of virtue.

DEFINITIONS OF MORAL CHARACTER

Damon (1988) identified six ways that social scientists have defined morality: (1) an evaluative
orientation that distinguishes good and bad and prescribes good; (2) a sense of obligation
toward standards of a social collective; (3) a sense of responsibility for acting out of concern for
others; (4) a concern for the rights of others; (5) a commitment to honesty in interpersonal
relationships; and (6) a state of mind that causes negative emotional reactions to immoral acts.
Wynne and Walberg (1984) wrote that moral character is “engaging in morally relevant
conduct or words, or refraining from certain conduct or words”
Piaget (1969) focused on the source of one’s behavior as being especially important. He said
that the essence of morality is respect for rules and that acting on internalized principles
(autonomy) represents a higher level of morality than performance based on rules imposed by
others (heteronomy).
Pritchard (1988) focused on moral character as a personality construct: “a complex set of
relatively persistent qualities of the individual person, and the term has a definite positive
connotation when it is used in discussions of moral education “.
Berkowitz (2002) said that moral character is “an individual’s set of psychological
characteristics that affect that person’s ability and inclination to function morally” (p. 48).
Havighurst (1953) equated morality with altruism.
Lickona (1991) attempted to connect psychological and behavioral components when he said
that “Good character consists of knowing the good, desiring the good, and doing the good—
habits of the mind, habits of the heart, and habits of action”. While most researchers support a
multidimensional aspect to moral character, especially Lickona’s (1991) advocacy of cognitive,
affective, and behavioral components, several authors support additional components.
Narvaez and Rest (1995) suggest that the skills of moral and character development should be
considered in terms of four psychological components. They say that the focus should be on the
internal processes and behavioral skills that are required for moral behavior and propose that
sensitivity, judgment, and motivation emerge from the interaction of cognitive and affective
processes.
1. Ethical Sensitivity—the perception of moral and social situations, including the ability to
consider possible actions and their repercussions in terms of the people involved;
2. Ethical Judgment—the consideration of possible alternative actions and the rationale for
selecting one or more as best;
3. Ethical Motivation—the selection of moral values most relevant in the situation and the
commitment to act on that selection;
4. Ethical Action—the ego strength combined with the psychological and social skills necessary
to carry out the selected alternative.
Huitt (2000), moral character incorporates the underlying qualities of a person’s moral or
ethical knowledge, reasoning, values, and commitments that are routinely displayed in behavior.
Character is associated with the quality of one’s life, especially in terms of moral and ethical
decisions and actions. As described in framework for developing the whole person, Huitt (2004)
placed moral character is one of three core elements that are dynamically related to both the
personal and social aspects of one’s life.
Berkowitz (2002) identified seven psychological components of the “moral anatomy,” and
urged scientists and educators to begin reconstructing the “complete moral person.”
1. Moral behavior (prosocial, sharing, donating to charity, telling the truth)
2. Moral values (believe in moral goods)
3. Moral emotion (guilt, empathy, compassion)
4. Moral reasoning (about right and wrong)
5. Moral identity (morality as an aspect self-image)
6. Moral personality (enduring tendency to act with honesty, altruism, responsibility
7. “Metamoral” characteristics meaning they make morality possible even though they are not
inherently moral.
Vessels’ (1998) divided cognition into moral knowing and moral reasoning. He addressed will
or volition by examining the intersections between moral feeling and both thinking (empathy,
motivation) and knowing (values, beliefs), and by defining moral behavior as intentional by
definition. According to Vessels, the intersection of moral knowing, reasoning, feeling, and
behaving yields conscience, which reflects one’s (a) past thoughts, feelings, and behavior, (b)
one’s present thoughts and feelings, and (c) one’s view of the future in terms of 4 feeling
compelled to act morally.
THEORIES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT
(1) External/Social -view morality as a product of external imposition in the form of
consequences and/or the intentional transmission of social rules and norms, respectively
(2) Internal- focus on genetic and maturational influences
(3) Interactional, which is divided into subcategories of instinctual (psychoanalytic,
psychosocial, and socio-analytic theories that view human nature as instinctual, undeveloped,
and in need of control or socialization) and maturational (cognitive- and affective-
developmental theories and social-learning theories that view human nature as good.)
(4) Personality/Identity, which includes theories that find virtue rooted in personality and
personal identity.

Moral Character: What It Is

a tripartite framework for understanding moral character, with the idea that it has motivational,
ability, and identity elements. Briefly, the three elements capture: (1) one’s desire to do good and
avoid doing bad,(motivation); (2) one’s capacity to do good and avoid doing bad (ability); and
(3) one’s identity as a good versus badperson (identity).
The first element in the tripartite model of moral character involves consideration of others’
wants and needs, and how one’s actions affect other people. We conceptualize consideration of
others as a motivational component of character because such consideration motivates people to
treat others fairly and considerately, which is required for successful relationship regulation and
group functioning. Without some level of concern for other people, one is unlikely to be willing
to balance self-interest with the interests of others.
The second element in our framework captures individual differences that are indicative of an
ability to act ethically and refrain from acting unethically. It comprises various traits related to
the regulation of one's behavior, specifically with reference to behaviors that may have positive
short-term consequences but negative long-term consequences for oneself or others .Examples
of traits that relate to self-regulation include Conscientiousness, self-control, and consideration
of future consequences.
he identity element of moral character refers to a disposition toward viewing morality as
important and central to one’s self-concept. This category captures individual differences that
indicate a deep concern about being a moral person and viewing oneself accordingly. Individual
differences in the internalization of moral identity arei ndicative of the extent to which morality
is important to an individual’s private sense of self.

MORAL CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT

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.

These traits must be praiseworthy and must have the content because of the agent’s active
discrimination rather than from the others, and it must have a reference to the value-making
dimensions of the traits. In other words, the moral agent has a responsibility for her own
character As Flanagan and Rorty (1990) put it, the phrase “The individual is responsible for his
character” means that she is the “one who is active in a certain way in the shaping of it”. One’s
character, therefore, is shaped first and foremost by the will power of the individual as is it
habituated. One’s character is also practiced everyday as part of her self-determination (Foot,
1997, 330). For this reason, we may view moral character as a disposition or tendency to act or
think in a specific way for which a person can be held morally responsible. And for Yarza (1994,
174), these traits are rational, informed, and stable dispositions of the human person.

One way to explain further character development is 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 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.

is important to note that a virtuous behavior for Aristotle means practicing moderation, that is,
avoiding both excess and deficiency. 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.. Indeed, moral virtue can be defined simply as the just mean

References:
Timpe, K.Moral Character.retrieved from https://www.iep.utm.edu/moral-ch/#SH1a

Essays, UK. (November 2018). The Development of a Moral Character. Retrieved from
https://www.ukessays.com/essays/philosophy/moral-character.php

Savannah, G. (March 2005). Moral and Character Development by Gordon Vessels and
William Huitt. Retrieved from http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/papers/chardev.pdf

Cohen, T.,Morse, L.(July 12,2014). Moral character: What it is and what it does. Retrived from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264000952_Moral_character_What_it_is_and_wh
at_it_does

Theodicy. Moral Development and the Moral Agent. Retrieved from

https://philonotes.com/index.php/moral-development/