MODULE II – THE MORAL AGENT

INTRODUCTION

This module presents the moral agent. It is hoped that you will learn how to appreciate how
culture shapes moral behaviour and able to give reasons why culture in not the ultimate determinant
of values. You will also learn the influences of the Filipino understanding of right and wrong

LEARNING OUTCOMES

After studying module the students are able to:

1. Explain how culture shapes moral discussion behaviour

2. Give reasons why culture should not be the ultimate determinant of value
3. Discuss the Filipino interpretation of right and wrong
4. Appreciate and practice values that help moral development

DIRECTIONS/ MODULE ORGANIZER

There are two lessons in this module. Read each lesson thought fully then answer the
learning activities to check how much you have benefited from it. Submit your output to your
teacher.
In case you encounter difficulty, discuss with your teacher during face-to-face meeting.

Good Luck! Happy Reading!

Lesson 1- Culture in Moral Behaviour

1. Culture: Some Definitions

Culture is a part of our social life as well as our personality. How “cultured” somebody
depends on some factors life status, class, education, taste in music, film, and speech habits. Some
show they appreciate culture by attending operas, plays, concert, symphonies, and poetry readings.
Some visit art galleries, museums to increase their “cultural awareness”.
Culture is so complex that it is difficult to define. Simply culture is used to demote the
practices, beliefs and perceptions of a given society.

Other definition of the term culture:

A) Culture is the sum total of the learned behaviour of a group of people that are generally
considered to be the tradition of that people and are transmitted from generation to generation.

B) Culture is symbolic communication. Some of its symbols include a group’s skills,

knowledge, attitude, values and motives. The meaning of the symbols are learned and perpetuated
in a society through its institutions.

C) Culture in its broadest sense is cultivated behaviour that is the totality of a person’s learned
accumulated experience which is socially transmitted. Defined broadly culture includes all the
things individuals learn while growing up among particular group: attitudes, values, role of
etiquette, standards of morality, perception of reality, language, notions about the proper way to
live, beliefs about how females and males should interact ideas about how the world works and so
forth. We call this cultural knowledge.

2. Culture’s Role in Moral Behaviour

Culture is a “way of life” of a group of people which includes moral values and behaviour
knowledge, beliefs, symbols, that they accept, “generally” without thinking about them, and they
are passed on by communication and imitation from one generation to the next
(“Cultural Definition”, n.d)
Culture is learned as children grow up in society and discover how their parents and people
around them interpret the world. They learn to distinguish objects, recognize attributes and perform
different kinds of acts and evaluate what is good and bad and to judge action as appropriate or
inappropriate.
 Many aspects of morality are learned from transmitters of culture namely parents, teachers,
novels, social media, film and television. The process of which children socially learn culture and
morality of those around them is called socialization or enculturation.
3. Moral Standards as social Convention and the Social Conditioning Theory

A) Theory Explained

Moral laws, standards or ruler are social convention which means that those are
agreed upon by people like through their authorities. Social conventions also refer to the
usual or customary ways of doing things within a group.

Since morality is handed down primarily by socialization or education by parents,

teacher, and elders some believe that moral standards are merely a human invention. To
theorize that moral law is a social convention means that this is something which human
beings had just made up for themselves.

The feeling that human beings are obliged to act morally, some atheists like Richard
Robinson maintain that morality is an outcome of social conditioning.
This theory also claims that the demands of conscience is also due to society, as society
express disapproval of certain action and people become aware of the reproof or contempt.
Eventually people begin to exercise their disapproving of those actions. This feeling of
dissatisfaction develops into a habit that functions as the conscience when one considers
doing these actions.

B) Theory Analyzed

Just because something is learned at homes or schools does not necessarily mean
that it is social convention. Like mathematical operation, geographical facts and scientific
laws are taught in those institutions yet they are never considered as human’s fabrications.
This means whether or not people know, believe and like them, they are as they are.

Although there are differences between the moral idea of one time and country the
differences are not really great. Nations or cultures only have slightly different moralities.
Therefore, moral laws is not among the class of mere convention for convention like the
law of the road or kind of clothes people wear observed to be different almost completely.
 It is affirmed that the morality of one people is better or worse than that of the
morality of one people is better or worse than that of another, which means that there is a
moral standard or rule that we measure both moralities and that standard is real. The moral
standards are what we call the norm of normality. This enables one to gauge the goodness
or badness of an act. There is really such a thing as right independent of what people think
as the saying goes “Right is right even if no one is doing it wrong is wrong even if
everybody is doing it” Where one says that a particular action “ought” or “ought not” to be
done, he feels the moral obligation to do the right action.
In a culture where moral views have become corrupted, those who go against
societal norms are considered as social reformers and moral models. The so-called sense
of moral obligation cannot be fully explained by social conditioning Example; one’s peer
may condition a person to engage in pre-marital sex as everyone in the group is doing it
anyway. But deep within a person, there is usually a feeling that the action is wrong. So,
he is morally obliged to disobey his peer’s insinuation.

The moment one is born God has written in his heart the natural law to know what’s
right or wrong. The intellect can be molded or socially conditioned not the sense of moral
obligation.

The intellect explains how social conditioning affects one’s concept of morality.
Ultimately nonetheless, ethical decisions are supposed to be made due to some sort of moral
law that presses down on every person.

4. Cultural Relativism in Ethics

Cultural relativism holds that ethical judgements have their origins in individual or cultural
standard. It is a form or moral relativism that defined “Moral” as what is socially approved by the
majority in the society in a particular culture. An act is ethical in a culture that approves of it but
immortal one that disapproves of it. Most cultural relativists base their moral theory on the
observation that societies fundamentally disagree about the ethical issues. What is moral within
one group may be totally immoral to other group and vice versa. Cultural relativism holds that
morality differs in every society as concepts of right and wrong vary or differ from culture to
culture. There is no single objective universal standard through which we can evaluate the truth of
moral judgements. The relativist theory is very much compatible to moral subjectivism.
According to this theory there is no “universal truth” in ethics, that is there are no moral
truth that hold for all peoples at all times. Every standard is culture bound. Relativists suggest that
one should adopt an attitude of tolerance toward the practice of other cultures.
5. Cultural Relativism: An Analysis

As a theory in ethics moral relativism and cultural relativism have some claims that are
questionable if not totally mistake. However, we could learn some lessons.
A. Valuable lesson from ethical relativism

Without doubt tolerance is necessary for people of different cultural origins to

coexist and live peacefully in society.
In a way the theory also teaches us to be open-minded, thereby being more open to discuss
the truth. Cultural relativism warns us not to be judgmental as it reminds us that some of
our beliefs and practices are mere conventional and these are not absolutely and exclusively
correct.

B. The Theory’s ethical faults

Moral simply means socially approved. Then one would have to believe that
exterminating millions of Jews is right. We could not say That ANTI-SEMITISM is socially
approved but wrong, since this would be self-contradicting within the theory.

Logically, the theory is inconsistent in promoting tolerance while teaching that no

culture is consider all practices including racism and morally superior than others.
Furthermore, being tolerant does not demand that we oppression as morally acceptable.

We encounter great problems in living out this ideology. We are member of various
overlapping societies and organizations. The theory is practical only if people do not belong
to more than one institution.

The theory is inconsistent for one cannot support relativism with a non-relative
statement. Therefore, any ethical theory which explicitly proposes that morality is relative
is basically unsound and untenable.

C. Rachel’s evaluation of cultural relativism

Because the theory attains widespread prominence the late Philosophy professor
James Rachels (1941-2003) made a compelling assessment of cultural relativism. This
would help a lot to consider Rachel’s evaluation of this ethical system.
 1) The Cultural Difference Argument

The Greeks believed it was wrong to eat the dead, whereas the Calatians (an Indian
Tribe) believed it was right to eat the dead. But does it follow that, from the mere fact that
they disagreed, that there is no objective truth in the matter? – ‘It does not – for the practice
was in fact wrong and one of the two groups was simply mistaken.
2) Against cultural differences argument, this counter argument could be considered.

People in some societies (e.g. primitive tribes) believe that the earth is flat, whereas
European hold that the earth is spherical.

Therefore, there is no “objective truth” in geography. Belief in the shape of the earth
is only a matter of opinion, and opinions vary from culture to culture.

This argument is obviously unsound because some societies might simply be wrong
in their beliefs. There is no reason for everyone to know that the world is round. Similarly,
if there is moral truth there is no reason for all people to know it. It does not mean that just
because various societies disagree on something that there is no objective truth about the
matter.

3) The Case of Eskimos and Callatians

The Eskimos are popular for killing perfectly normal infants, especially girts. This
makes them appear to possess significantly different values from ours.

It is not that Eskimos have less affection for their children or less respect for human
life. An Eskimos family will always protect their babies if conditions permit.

But they live in a harsh environment where food is in short supply that life is hard
and the margin of safety small.
Infant girts are more readily disposed of because of the following reasons given by
Rachels.

a) The males are the primary food providers-

They are the hunters and it is important to maintain a sufficient number of

food providers.
 b) The hunters suffer a high casualty rate

In Eskino’s very special case, infanticide is thus a recognition that drastic

measures are sometimes needed to ensure the family’s survival.
Killing the baby is not the first option considered as Rachels reports,
adoption is common and killing is only the last resort. The Eskinos values are not
all that different from out values.
D. The bad consequnces of cultural relativism

The following corollaries as emmurated by Rachels (1999- p. 25-27)

1) We could no longer say that the customs of other societies are morally
inferior to our own
2) We could decide whether actions are right or wrong just by consulting the
standards of our own society.
3) This idea of moral progress is called into doubt. Changes regarding the
status of women in society cannot be taken as sign of progress.

In cultural relativism Dr. Jose Rizal and Martin Luther King who have sought to
change their societies may not be necessarily regarded as reformers.

6. Asian Moral Understanding

Because culture has a major impact on morality, people from different cultures
appear to have seemingly, but not essentially, different sets of ethics. This or particularly
apparent of people from the Eastern or Asian cultures compared to those from the Western
Culture.
 The following table summarizes the perceived differences between Western and Eastern
Ethics (“Western and Eastern Ethics”, n.d.)

Western Ethics Eastern Ethics

Focus Finding Truth Protocol and respect

Basis Rational Thought Religious teachings`

Emphasis Logic, Cause and effect Respect towards family

Roots in Athens, Rome and Judeo Christianity

Hinduism, Buddhism Confucianism
and Taoism

Approach Rational Holistic and Cultural

Good must triumph over evil

Conflict and Good and bad, Light and dark all exist
Harmony in equilibrium

As shown in the table, The basis of Asian Ethics is religious. Confucianism for instance focuses on
the culturation of virtue and maintenance of morality, the moral basic of which are ren (an
obligation of altruism and humaneness for other individuals), yi (the upholding of righteousness
and the moral disportion to do good) and li (a system of norms and propriety that determines how
a person should properly act in everyday life).

7. Filipino Moral Character: Strength and Weakness

Filipino cultural morality especially that which concerns social ethics centers on
ideally having a smooth interpersonal relationship (SIR) with others. SIR is principally
supported by and anchored on at least six Filipino values:

a. Pakikisama - This is both a value and a goal that involves keeping good feelings
in all personal interactions and getting along well with others often times at all costs.
Pakikisama can work either positively or negatively.
 b. Hiya - It is the feeling of shyness, inhibition, lowliness, shame or embarrassment
which is somewhat distressing. It is related to the concept of “face” with how one
appears in the eyes of others. HIya or “fear of losing face” makes one afraid to do bad
things that may damage one’s reputation. Too much “hiya” may lead to having
inferiority complex and losing self – confidence.

c. Amor Propio - Like hiya, amor propio is derived from the concept of “face”.
Though commonly translated as “self – respect” or “self – esteem” it has been described
as the high degree of sensitivity that makes a person intolerant of criticism and causes
him to have an easily wounded pride. (Amor Propio n.d.) Amor Propio came from the
tendency of a person to protect his dignity or honor. Because of pride or Amor Propio
he may refuse offers even if he really wants to accept them.

d. Utang na Loob - This value balances obligations and debts. It is reciprocity or

returning the received favor. The inability to repay the “utang na loob” (debt of
gratitude) usually makes a person “walang hiya” or “walang utang na loob”. To avoid
this, some Filipinos do bad things like voting for unworthy candidate just to return the
received favor.

e. Filipino hospitality - This refers to the inmate ability and trait of Filipino to be
courteous and entertaining to their guests. Indeed, Filipinos are known internationally
as warm, welcoming and accommodating. Negatively this trait however makes Filipino
prone to being abused.
f. Respect to elders - Filipinos are known to be respectful people. They are not only
respectful to others but have a unique way of respecting others.

These include the use of “po” and “opo” when talking to elders and “pagmamano” or
putting the elders hand to one’s forehead. Negatively excessive respect to elders make
one dependent or irrationally obedient to parents or elders. (Consult appendix J for
further discussion.

(Learn more about the Weaknesses and strengths of Filipinos by reading the article “ A
Moral Recovery” Prg: Building a People, Building a Nation by P. Licuanan
www.OurHappySchool.com)

8. Universal Values - There values are held and shaed by cultures. Despite the distance
Western and Eastern cultures have common values. There values never change. These
may be called absolute values, time, place, culture may vary but absolute or universal
values do not change.
 This proves that cultural or moral relativism is wrong.

Examples of universal values are:

a) Truth - one should deny what is false and what accept what is true. This is
indispensable for a society to exist. Without it, there would be no reason to listen to
what anyone communicates with anyone.
b) Love - Love for the good should be the basis of making decisions and choices.
Reasons and good intentions are not enough.

c) Faith - There must be faith in the almighty and compassionate God who holds us
in the palm of His hands.

d) Integrity - This is the essence of self- respect. It means repridiations of lying,

deceit, cheating, fraud, hypocrisy and dishonesty in all its forms. The Filipino should
reject lagay, padulas, puslit, palusot, palakasan or padrimo system.

e) Respecting life - This prohibits murder. Everyone has the primary right to live.
Taking the life if others is wrong and everyone would have to be constantly on guard.
Therefore, it is wrong to overestimate the amounts of differences between cultures. Not
every moral rule can vary from society to society. This only proves the wrongness of
Cultural Relativism.
LEARNING EXPERIENCE

A. Identification. Identity the term being referred to.

1.Accepting what is true and denying what is false.

2.It means honesty in all its form.
3.The value which should be the basis of choices and decisions.
4.A feeling of shame, lowliness, and inhibition which is experienced as distressing.
5.The religion that focuses on the cultivation of virtue and maintenance of morality.
6.The people who are popular for killing perfectly normal infants, especially girts.
7.The late professor who made a compelling assessment of Cultural Relativism.
8.The usual or customary wayus by which things are done within a group.
9.In Philippine culture, this is principally supported and anchored on at least six Filipino
values.
10. The sum total of learned behaviour of a group of people that are generally considered to be
their tradition and are transmitted from generation to generation.

B. Matching type: Match column A with column B write of the correct answer

A. B.
1. The Inmate ability and trait of Filipino to be courteous a. yi
and entertaining the guest.
2. In Confucianism, it is the upholding of the moral b. Cultural Relativism
disposition to do goal.
3. Perhaps, it is the most popular form of moral relativism c. hospitality
4. The way of a life of a group of people. d. Lewis
5. The philosopher who claims that morality belongs to the e. culture
same class as mathematics.
6. It believes that no act is good or bad objectively. f. subjectivism
7. It places more emphasize or law and justice g. hiya
8. Too much of this may lead to loving self-confidence h. Western Ethics
9. They base moral theory on the observation i. Moral relativists
that societies fundamentally disagree about ethical issues. j. universal
10. The values that are generally shared by cultures. k. yong
C. Essay:

1. Discuss what culture is.

2. How does your community influence your behaviour?
3. Explain cultural relativism. Do you adhere to it? Why?
4. Identity universal values. Are these necessary to human survival? Why?
5. Name and differentiate moral behaviour of different cultures.
Lesson II - THE MORAL AGENT

A. Moral Character and Virtues

Virtues are habits of doing what is good and character is derived from the Greek word
“character” which means used as a mark imprinted upon a coin. Later the word character means a
distinct mark by which one thing is distinguished from the other and which means the collections
of qualities that distinguish a person from another.
In philosophical sense, moral character refers to having or lacking moral virtue. If one lacks
virtue, he may have any of the moral vices (habit of doing what is evil.)
Character is the will of the individual to direct his efforts towards a recognized ideal. It is a
creative process of developing oneself, not necessarily according to socially acceptable norms but
according to a set of recognized ideals. In history, men considered great in character are often non-
conformists, acting against the prevailing beliefs and practices of their day. Such were Christ,
Buddha, Gandhi and many others.
Character is the process of becoming man, by unfolding the inmate goodness of human
nature. It is a conscious effort to grow “in age and wisdom” Character is the habit of doing well at
all times.
Philisophers usually think that moral character involves a normative judgement. The agent
or doer is morally responsible for having the moral character trait itself or for the outcome of that
trait. Hence, a certain moral character trait is a trait for which the agent is morally responsible.

B. The Circular Relation of Acts and Character

In the process of moral development, there is the circular relation between acts that build
character and moral character itself. Not all acts help build moral character but acts which emanate
from moral characters certainly matter in moral development. A person’s actions determine his
moral character but moral character generates acts that help develop either virtue or vice.
Moral development is human flourishing. It is attained by the habitual practice of moral and
intellected excellences or “virtues” that brings about self-realization and happiness.
Philosophers like Aristotle hold that the function of human beings are activities that manifest the
best states of his rational aspect, that is, the virtues. Virtous acts complete or perfect human life
Nonetheless, Greek philosophers think that it takes someone of good moral character to determine
us what acts are appropriate and reasonable in certain situation.
C. Moral Characters as Disposition

Characteristically understood the moral character traits that constitute a person’s moral
character are behavioural and affective dispositions. Moral character traits either virtues or vices
are considered disposition. A good moral character is a disposition to do virtuous acts and a bad
moral character is a disposition to do vicious acts.

D. Six Stages of Moral Development

The American psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg (1927-71987) is best known for his moral
development theory of six stages. He developed further the Swiss clinical psychologist Jean
Piaget’s (1896- 1986) theory of moral development.
Kohlberg used Piaget’s storytelling technique involving moral dilemmas, in each case
Kohlberg offered an option to be considered, for example between the right of some authority and
the needs of deserving persons who are being unfairly treated. One of his best-known stories
concerns a man named Heinz.
“In Europe a woman was near death from a special kind of cancer, there was one drug that
the doctor thought might save her. The drug was expensive but the druggist was charging ten times
what the drug cost him to make. He paid $200 for the radium charged $2000 for the small dose of
the drug. The sick women’s husband Heinz went to everyone to borrow money but he had only
about $1000. He told the druggist that `that his wife is dying and asked him to sell him cheaper or
let him pay later. But the druggist said “no I discovered the drug and Im going to make money from
it”. So, Heinz got desperate and broke the man’s store to steal the drug for his wife”
(Kohlberg, as quoted in “Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development” n.d.)
Kohlberg asked a series of questions such as: Should Heinz have stolen the drug? Would it
change anything if Heinz did not love his wife? What if the person dying was a stranger, would it
make any difference? Should the police arrest the chemist for murder if the woman died?
Through the analysis of the answers Kohlberg discerned that the moral reasoning of
individual developed as they grew older. Kohlberg was interested on the reason provided for the
decision.
Kohlberg gave three distinct levels of moral reasoning with two stages each. He believed
people can only pass through these levels in the order listed. Each new stage replaces the kind of
reasoning typical of the previous stage. Some do not achieve all the stages.

Level Age Range Stage Nature of Moral Reasoning

Level I: Seen in preschool Stage 1: People make decisions based on what is the
Preconventional children, most Punishment best for themselves without regard for others’

Morality avoidance
elementary school needs or feelings. They obey rules onlY if
and
students, some junior established by more powerful individuals, they
obedience
high school students, may disobey if they aren’t likely to get caught.
and a few high school “wrong” behaviours are those that will be
students punished.

Stage 2:
People recognize that others also have needs.
Exchange of
They may try to satisfy others need if their own
favors
needs 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.

Level II: Stage 3: People make decisions based what actions will
Seen in a few older
Conventional Good please others, especially authority figures and
elementary school
Morality boy/girl other individuals with high status (E.G
students, some junior
teachers, popular peers). They are concerned
high school students,
about maintaining relationships through
and many high school
sharing, trust, and loyalty, and they take other
students (STAGE 4
people’s perspective and intentions into
typically does not
account when making decisions
appear until the high
school years)

Stage 4: Law
People look to society as a whole for guidelines
and order
about right or wrong, They know rules are
necessary for keeping society running
smoothly and believe it is their “buty” 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 II: Rarely seen before Stage 5:
college (stage 6 is People recognize that rules represent among
Postconventional Social
extremely rare even many individuals about appropriate behaviour.
Morality contract
in adults) Rules are seen as potentially useful
mechanisms that can maintain the general
social order and protect individual rights rather
that 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:
universal Stage 6 is hypothetical, “ideal” stage that few
ethical people ever reach. People in this stage adhere to
principle a few abstract, universal principles (e.g.
equality of all people, respect for human
dignity, commitments to justice) that transcend
specific norms and rules. They answer to a
strong inner conscince and

willingly disobey laws that violate their own

ethical principles.

E. Getting to the Higher Level, Conscience Based Moral Decisions

Another way to view Kohlberg’s stages, combined with Piaget’s theory is as follows

(Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development n.d.)

Stage 1: Respect for power and punishment

A young child (ages 1-5) chooses what to do, what is right, according to what he wants to do
without getting into trouble. In this level, to be right, one ought to be obedient to the people in power
to avoid punishment. The motto in this stage seems to be “might makes right”

Stage 2: Looking out for #1

Children (ages 5-10) are egoistic. They lack respect for others’ rights but may give to others
if they will get as much or even more in return. Instead of loyalty, gratitude, or justice the case is
more a matter of “you scratch my back and ill scratch yours” The motto here seems to be “what’s
in it for me?

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

People (ages 8-16) have shifted from pleasing themselves to pleasing important others, usually
parents, teachers, or friends. When charged of doing something wrong, their behaviour is likely to
be justified by saying “everyone else is doing it” or “I didn’t intend to hurt anyone” The motto is
“I want to be nice”
Stage 4: Law and order thinking

The majority of people (16 and older) have internalized society’s rules. They feel obliged
to confirm to society’s laws and customs, they realize that it is important to do one’s duty to
maintain social order. Social leaders are assumed to be right and social rules are adopted without
considering the core moral principles involved. Thus, social control is exercised through guilt
associated with breaking a rule through the guilt is an automatic emotional response. Individual
believes that anyone breaking the rules deserves to be punished and pays his debt of society. The
motto here is “I’ll do my duty”

Stage 5: Justice through democracy

People understand the underlying moral principle purposes that are to be served by laws
and social customs. Democracy Is seen as a social contract whereby everybody tried constantly to
construct a set of laws that best serve most people while protecting the basic rights of everybody.
Respect and sense of obligation to live by the rules are present, as long as rules are not established
to fulfil a moral purpose. Only about 20-25 % of today’s adults reach this stage. The motto here
“I’ll live by the rules or try to change them”.

Stage 6: Deciding on basic moral principle by which you live your life and relate to everyone
fairly

People have rationally chosen a philosophy of life that truly guides their life. Individuals
judiciously elect fundamental principles to follow, such as feeling all people are equal, respecting
every living thing or subscribing to the Golden Rule. They are tough enough to act on their values.
Social control in this stage is exercised through guilt associated with rational reaction of conscience
based on moral principles. This stage is the highest level, conscience based on moral decision.
 6. Problem with Kohlberg’s Theory

Dilemmas presented are artificial, they lack ecological validity. For instance, in Heinz
dilemma, Kohlberg’s subjects were aged between 10-16, have never been married and so not
credible to answer whether or not Heinz should steal the drug.
Some say that Kohlberg’s sample is biased because Kohlberg theory was based on all male sample
thus the stages reflect an androcentric or male definition of morality. Men’s morality is basically
based on abstract principles of law and justice, whereas women’s is based on principles of
compassion and care.

LEARNING EXPERIENCES:

1. What are the contributory elements to your moral characters? Explain.

2. How is moral character developed?
3. Explain briefly the six stages of moral development