Moral development

SUMMARY

1. In Kohlberg’s reasoning, people who merely follow the rules and regulations
of their institution, the laws of their community or state, the doctrine of their
religion - even if they seem to be the truly right thing to do - are trapped in
this second conventional level, which is still not yet the highest.
The point of Kohlberg’s theory is not to ascertain what defines the
goodness or rightness of the act. Thus, in this sense, Kohlberg’s idea is not
an ethical theory.
Instead, it is a psychological theory that attempts to describe the
stages of a person’s growth in moral thinking. The morally mature
individual, for Kohlberg, must outgrow both (1) the pre-conventional
level, whose pleasure-and-pain logic locks one into self-centered kind of
thinking, an egoism, as well as (2) the conventional level, which at first
glance looks like the sensible approach to morality.
The second level might, de facto, be the way that many (if not most)
adults think about morality, that it is simply a question of following the right
rules.
The great insight of Kohlberg, however, is that a truly morally
mature individual must outgrow even the simple following of
supposedly right rules. This is where the third level comes in.

2. One does not have to agree completely with Kohlberg’s theory of moral
development to see its overall value. This theory helps, at the very least, point out
the differences in moral reasoning: the more mature kind is seen in people who
are not anymore dictated by the logic of reward and punishment, or pain and
pleasure. Simply following rules even if, theoretically, they are the correct
ones, does not necessarily qualify as morally mature behavior. One must make
free use of her own power of reasoning in cases of moral choice and not
remain a creature of blind obedience to either pain or pleasure or to the
demands of the group, if one aspires to moral maturity.

The significance of studying the different ethical theories and frameworks becomes
clear to individual who has achieved, or is in the process of achieving, moral
maturity. For someone who is still in Kohlberg’s pre-conventional or conventional
stages, moral valuations / judgment / decisions remain a matter of seeking reward
or avoiding punishment, or at best, a question of following the dictates of other
people.

For one who is well on the way to moral maturity, the task of using one’s
reason to understand moral issues becomes a real possibility and an authentic
responsibility. Part of this maturity is also the realization that ethical thinking
is not a completely intellectual task, but one that also involves the feelings.

Remember this: Moral Valuation is social reasoning.

Let us start discussing this lesson step by step:

There is a big difference between a young child’s reasoning on the right thing to do
and the manner a morally mature individual arrives at an ethical decision. This
necessary growth, which is a maturation in social reasoning, has been the focus
of study of many theorists. One of them is the American moral psychologist
Lawrence Kohlberg who theorized that moral development happens in six stages,
which he divided into three levels.

FIRST LEVEL: PRE-CONVENTIONAL LEVEL. The first level is what he

called pre-conventional and it corresponds to how infants and young children
think. This pre-conventional level, whose reasoning is centered on the
consequences of one’s actions, is divided into two stages.

The first stage of reasoning centers around obedience and

the avoidance of punishment: to a young child’s mind, an
action is “good” if it enables one to escape from punishment;
“bad” if it leads to punishment.

Later, a child enters the second stage of reasoning and

learns to act according to what she thinks will serve her
self-interest; thus, what is “good” at this age is what the
child thinks can bring her pleasure.

Kohlberg used the term pre-conventional to refer to these two

stages since at this age, a young child basically thinks only
in terms of the pain (punishment) or pleasure (reward)
brought about as a consequence of her actions. Thus, her
concentration is on herself and what she feels, instead of
her society’s conventions on what is right or wrong.
(I hope this table helps.)

FIRST LEVEL: Pre-Conventional First Stage

1. Reasoning centers around
consequences of one’s action.
2. A child thinks only about
himself/herself, thinks on pain and
pleasure.
3. Focuses only on herself/himself
and what she/he feels.
Reasoning centers on obedience and
avoidance of punishment
Second Stage
Reasoning centers on his/her self-
interest, on what will bring him/her
pleasure.

SECOND LEVEL: CONVENTIONAL LEVEL. The second level of

moral development is conventional level since this is the age in which
older children, adolescents, and young adults learn to conform to
the expectations of society. This is the time when one learns to follow
the conventions of her group. This second level is divided into two
stages: the third and the fourth stages of moral development.

The third stage is when one begins to act according to what

the larger group she belongs to expects of her. The
individual here assumes that what will benefit her best is
when the other members of her group approve of her
actions. The general tendency at this age is to conform first
to the values of one’s immediate group, such as the family,
playmates, or later on, barkada. Older children and
adolescents eventually begin to value the expectations of the
larger group they belong to, whether it be their school,
religion, or state.

The fourth stage is achieved when a person realizes that

following the dictates of her society is not just good for
herself but more importantly, it is necessary for the
existence of society itself. The individual at this stage values
most the laws, rules, and regulations of her society, and
thus her moral reasoning is shaped by dutifulness to the
external standards set by society.

In Kohlberg’s reasoning, people who merely follow the

rules and regulations of their institution, the laws of their
community or state, the doctrine of their religion - even if
they seem to be the truly right thing to do - are trapped in
this second or conventional level, which is still not yet the
highest. The point of Kohlberg’s theory is not to ascertain
what defines the goodness or rightness of the act. Thus, in
this sense, Kohlberg’s idea is not an ethical theory. Instead, it
is a psychological theory that attempts to describe the stages
of a person’s growth in moral thinking. The morally mature
individual, for Kohlberg, must outgrow both (1) the pre-
conventional level, whose pleasure-and-pain logic locks
one into self-centered kind of thinking, an egoism, as well
as (2) the conventional level, which at first glance looks
like the sensible approach to morality. The second level
might, de facto, be the way that many (if not most) adults
think about morality, that it is simply a question of following
the right rules. The great insight of Kohlberg, however, is
that a truly morally mature individual must outgrow even
the simple following of supposedly right rules. This is
where the third level comes in.
(Again, I hope this table helps.)

SECOND LEVEL: Conventional Third Stage

1. Reasoning centers on 1. Reasoning centers on acting to
conforming with the expectations the expectations of a bigger group.
of society 2. Reasoning centers on the belief
2. Reasoning centers on following that what is best for her/him is
the convention of her/his group what is approved by the group.
3. What is valuable to the person is
to conform first with the values of
the group, like family, friends.
4. Reasoning for older children
centers on conforming to the
values of schools, religion or state.
Fourth Stage
1. Person realizes that
following the dictates of
her society is not just
good for herself but more
importantly, it is
necessary for the
existence of society itself.
2. The individual at this
stage values most the
 laws, rules, and
regulations of her society,
and thus her moral
reasoning is shaped by
dutifulness to the
external standards set by
society.

THIRD LEVEL: POST-CONVENTIONAL LEVEL. The third and

highest level of moral development for Kohlberg is what he calls post-
conventional since the morally responsible agent recognizes that
what is good or right is not reducible to following the rules of one’s
group. Instead, it is a question of understanding personally what one
ought to do and deciding, using one’s free will, to act accordingly.
This level, which is also divided into two stages (the fifth and the sixth),
represents the individual’s realization that the ethical principles she has
rationally arrived at take precedence over even the rules or conventions
that her society dictates. Moral maturity therefore is seen in an agent
who acts on what she has understood, using her full rationality, to
be what is right, regardless of whether the act will bring the agent
pleasure or pain and even regardless of whether the act is in
accordance with one’s community’s laws or not. An agent has
attained full moral development if she acts according to her well-
thought-out rational principles.

In the earlier stage of this level of moral development in the

fifth stage, the moral agent sees the value of social contract,
namely, agreement that rational agents have arrived at whether
explicitly or implicitly in order to serve what can be considered the
common good are what one ought to honor and follow. This
notion of common good is post-conventional in the sense that
the moral agent binds herself to what this theoretical
community of rational agents has identified as morally
desirable, whether the agent herself will benefit from doing so
 or not. Additionally, this notion of the common good is not
reducible to pre-existing communal rules, traditions, or laws since
even these must be weighed using rational discourse. Thus, what is
good or right is what honors the social contract; what contradicts it
is bad.

The sixth and the highest stage of moral development that

exists even beyond the fifth stage of the social contract is
choosing to perform actions based on universal ethical
principles that one has determined by herself. One realizes that
all the conventions (laws, rules, ans regulations) of society are
only correct if they are based on these universal ethical
principles; they must be followed only if they reflect universal
ethical principles. This is, for Kohlberg, the full maturity of
post-conventional thinking since this stage recognizes that in
the end, the question of what one ought to do goes back to the
individual moral agent and her own rationality. Kohlberg’s
insight is that, ultimately, one must think for herself what she
ought to do. This stand recognizes the supposed fact that there
might be instances when the agent must choose to go against what
the community of rational thinkers deems as good if she really
thinks she must, assuming that she has committed her full
rationality in arriving at that decision.

One does not have to agree completely with Kohlberg’s theory of moral
development to see its overall value. This theory helps, at the very least,
point out the differences in moral reasoning: the more mature kind is
seen in people who are not anymore dictated by the logic of reward
and punishment, or pain and pleasure. Simply following rules even
if, theoretically, they are the correct ones, does not necessarily
qualify as morally mature behavior. One must make free use of her
own power of reasoning in cases of moral choice and not remain a
creature of blind obedience to either pain or pleasure or to the
demands of the group, if one aspires to moral maturity.
The significance of studying the different ethical theories and
frameworks becomes clear to individual who has achieved, or is in the
process of achieving, moral maturity. For someone who is still in
Kohlberg’s pre-conventional or conventional stages, moral valuations /
judgment / decisions remain a matter of seeking reward or avoiding
punishment, or at best, a question of following the dictates of other
people.

For one who is well on the way to moral maturity, the task of using
one’s reason to understand moral issues becomes a real possibility
and an authentic responsibility. Part of this maturity is also the
realization that ethical thinking is not a completely intellectual task,
but one that also involves the feelings.

What are the three levels of moral development?

Remember in each level, there are two stages.

THIRD LEVEL: Post- Fifth Stage

Conventional
1. The morally responsible agent
recognizes that what is good or
right is not reducible to following
the rules of one’s group.
2. Instead, it is a question of
understanding personally what one
ought to do and deciding, using
one’s free will, to act accordingly.
3. This level represents the
individual’s realization that the
ethical principles she has rationally
arrived at take precedence over even
the rules or conventions that her
society dictates.
4.Moral maturity therefore is seen
in an agent who acts on what she
has understood, using her full
rationality, to be what is right,
regardless of whether the act will
1. The moral agent sees the value of
social contract, namely, agreement
that rational agents have arrived at
whether explicitly or implicitly in
order to serve what can be
considered the common good are
what one ought to honor and follow.
2. This notion of common good is
post-conventional in the sense that
the moral agent binds herself to
what this theoretical community of
rational agents has identified as
morally desirable, whether the
agent herself will benefit from
doing so or not.
3.Additionally, this notion of the
common good is not reducible to
pre-existing communal rules,
traditions, or laws since even these
must be weighed using rational
bring the agent pleasure or pain
and even regardless of whether the
act is in accordance with one’s
community’s laws or not.
5.An agent has attained full moral
development if she acts according
to her well-thought-out rational
principles.
discourse.
4.Thus, what is good or right is
what honors the social contract;
what contradicts it is bad.
Sixth Stage
1.The sixth and the highest stage
of moral development that exists
even beyond the fifth stage of the
social contract is choosing to
perform actions based on universal
ethical principles that one has
determined by herself.
2.One realizes that all the
conventions (laws, rules, and
regulations) of society are only
correct if they are based on these
universal ethical principles; they
must be followed only if they
reflect universal ethical principles.
3.This is, for Kohlberg, the full
maturity of post-conventional
thinking since this stage recognizes
that in the end, the question of
what one ought to do goes back to
the individual moral agent and her
own rationality.
4.Kohlberg’s insight is that,
ultimately, one must think for herself
what she ought to do. This stand
recognizes the supposed fact that
there might be instances when the
agent must choose to go against what
the community of rational thinkers
deems as good if she really thinks
she must, assuming that she has
committed her full rationality in
arriving at that decision.
STUDY THIS PROBLEM AND HOW MORAL DEVELOPMENT DISCUSSES
THE PROBLEM
------------------------------------

LAWRENCE KOHLBERG’S MORAL DEVELOPMENT

(Educational Technology site)

Jean Piaget introduced the idea of how moral development occurs in

stages, each level built on life experiences and active reasoning.
Lawrence Kohlberg furthered this idea by examining how moral
reasoning changes as we grow. How did people determine what was
right or wrong? Following specific patterns of human behaviour,
Kohlberg organized the 6 stages into 3 levels of moral reasoning.
Participants in his studies, including adults, teenagers, and children,
were asked to offer reasoning to a dilemma. An example that
Kohlberg used as a moral dilemma is as follows:

This is the problem kaya observe how this is discussed from FIRST
STAGE to 6TH STAGE. Prepare for a quiz.

A man named Heinz, who lived in Europe, had a wife whom he loved
very much. His wife was diagnosed with a rare type of cancer and did
not have long to live. Luckily, there was a pharmacist who invented a
drug called radium that could cure her. The pharmacist owned all rights
to this medication and decided to sell it at a high markup in order to
make a profit. While it cost only $200 to make, he sold it for 10 times
that amount $2000. Heinz did not have enough money to pay the
exorbitant price, so he tried fundraising to cover the costs. With time
running out, he had only managed to gather $1000, which was not
enough to buy the medication. Heinz begged the pharmacist to sell it to
him at a reduced price but the man refused. Desperate and running out
of time, Heinz broke into the pharmacy after hours and stole the drug.
 Was this the right or wrong thing to do? Why?

STAGES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT

There were 3 levels of moral reasoning that encompassed the 6
stages. Like Piaget, subjects were unlikely to regress in their moral
development, but instead, moved forward through the stages: pre-
conventional, conventional, and finally post-conventional. Each stage
offers a new perspective, but not everyone functions at the highest
level all the time. People gain a more thorough understanding as they
build on their experiences, which makes it impossible to jump stages
of moral development.

1. Stage 1 (Pre-Conventional)
- Obedience and punishment orientation (How can I avoid
punishment?)
- Self-interest orientation (What’s in it for me? Aiming at
a reward)

2. Stage 2 (Conventional)
- Interpersonal accord and conformity (Social norms:
good boy - good girl attitude)
- Authority and social order maintaining orientation (Law
and order morality)

3. Stage 3 (Post-Conventional)
- Social contract orientation (Justice and the spirit of the
law)
- Universal ethical principles (Principle conscience)

Preconventional morality - young children under the age of 9

Stage 1: Obedience and Punishment Orientation

 The first stage highlights the self-interest of children to
our example above, the man should not steal the
medication from the pharmacy as he may go to jail if he is
caught.

Similar to the first stage in Piaget’s theory, Kohlberg

reflects on the moral thought of children. At a young age,
they believe that rules are meant to be followed and
those in charge will undoubtedly follow through with
punishment. A child’s reasoning to the above example
may include “it’s bad to steal,” or “it’s against the law,”
without assessing the perspective of the man whose wife
is sick.

This stage is labeled preconventional due to the limited

association that children have with the outlined principles.
They view the ethics taught as something that society
implements, not as something they internalized
themselves.

Stage 2: Individualism and Exchange

This stage observes how children begin to adopt the

views taught, but also recognize that there is more than
one point of view for each matter. Each person is
different and will, therefore, have a unique outlook
according to their interests. In terms of our example
above, they may reason that “he may think that it is right
to take the drug, but the pharmacist would not.”

The second stage relies heavily on the exchange of favors

and can be summarized with the common marketing
saying “what’s it in for me?” Children at this stage are not
motivated by friendship or respect but by the personal
 advantage involved. For example, if a parent asks their
child to complete a chore around the house, the child
may ask what the benefit would be to them. Parents
often recognize the “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch
yours”, mindset at this stage and offer a reward, such as
an allowance.

Conventional morality - older children, adolescents, and most adults

Stage 3: Good Interpersonal relationships

The stage recognizes the desire to be accepted into

societal groups as well as how each person is affected by
the outcome. In terms of our example above, the man
should take the medicine from the pharmacy in order to
be a good partner to his wife.

Children in the third stage are typically pre-teens or early

teenagers and have now adopted the societal norms as
their own. While they believe that people should behave
appropriately in their communities; they recognize that
there is no simple solution to moral dilemmas. In
Kohlberg’s study per the example above: they accepted
that he should steal the medicine and “he was a good
man for wanting to save her.” They also reasoned that
“his intentions were good; that of saving the life of
someone he loves.”

Stage 4: Maintaining the Social Order

In this stage, laws and social order reign supreme. Rules

and regulations are to be followed and obeyed. In the
above example, the man should not steal the medicine
 because it is against the law.

Stage 4 shows the moral development of a person as a

part of a whole society. Each person becomes more
aware of the impact of everyone’s actions on others and
focuses now on their own role, following the rules, and
obeying authorities. While stage 3 highlights the close
relationships with family and friends, stage 4 attempts to
maintain social order in the community. Pertaining to the
example above, participants in stage four would argue
that while they understood why he wanted to steal the
medication, they could not support the idea of theft.
Society cannot maintain order if its members decided to
break the laws when they thought they had a good
enough reason to do so.

Post-conventional morality - rare with adolescents and few adults

Stage 5: Social Contract and Individual Rights

This stage acknowledges the introduction of abstract

reasoning as people attempt to explain specific behaviors.
In our example above, the man should steal the
medication for his wife because she is deathly ill and the
laws do not take the circumstances into account.

In the 5th stage, members begin to consider “What makes

for a good society?” They are able to step back and assess
each situation as a whole, reflecting on what is good and
just. Reflecting on the morals and ethics of their current
of their current community allows them to address
inconsistencies in their values and attempt to fix what
they do not agree with. A society that runs smoothly does
 not necessarily uphold their desired principles. This is one
step ahead of stage 4, where the main goal is to keep a
society functioning at all costs.

Stage 6: Universal Principles

The final stage of Kohlberg’s theory states that moral

reasoning is based on personal values. In the above
example, it is okay for the man to take the medication
without paying as objects or property are not as valuable
as his wife’s life.
Stage 6 was developed when Kohlberg discovered that
elected processes do not always result in fair outcomes.
Individuals at the 5th stage of moral reasoning recognized
the importance of protecting human rights while also
resolving challenges in a democratic way. Unfortunately,
some majority votes resulted in regulations that actually
hurt a minority group leading to questions of an even
higher level of reasoning.
The 6th stage was created to acknowledge the use of
justice in moral reasoning. General universal morals and
ethics are used as a baseline for what is right and just.
These are often abstract concepts that cannot be clearly
defined, only outlined. Equality, justice, dignity, and
respect are all ideas that from the basis of universal
principles, Laws and rules are only effective if they
support the universal principles, which each person at
this stage works to uphold.
Similarly, they work on disobeying laws that are unfair
and feels guilty if they don’t obey the laws that they
 believe in: individuals at this level of reasoning behaved
in a certain way because it was the right thing to do, and
were not motivated by laws or societal expectations.
Kohlberg found it challenging to identify participants in
his studies who could consistently display moral reasoning
in the sixth stage.
SUMMARY
In the 1st stage, children obey the rules and believe what
society says is right. Avoiding punishment is a leading
factor in their desire to obey authority. This has
diminished by stage 2, where children can see that they
(there) are multiple points of view to the matter in
question. They tend to reason according their own self-
interest, including bartering with others.
In stage 3, people value a supportive community and
therefore have the desire to be a good helpful member.
This changes as they move into stage four where they seek
instead to meet the goals of the society, which includes
maintaining law and order. Throughout both stages, we see
how young teens value the morals and ethics of the group of
which they are part.
In stage 5, people evolve from the idea of being good into
what would be the right thing to do. They seek to create
morals and values for a good society instead of
maintaining the society for the sake of doing so. They take
these ideas one step further in stage 6, where they work to
incorporate justice and creating a fair society for all.
1. FEELINGS IN MORAL DELIBERATION

Emotions or feelings have long been derided by purely rationalistic perspectives

as having no place in a properly executed moral decision. This prejudice, however,
needs to be re-examined thoroughly.

Although some emotions or feelings can derail one from a clear-minded decision
in an ethical situation, it is also not possible that human choice can be purged of all
feelings; the moral agent, after all, is neither robot nor computer.

A more realistic attitude toward decision-making is to appreciate the indispensable

role emotions have on an agent’s act of choosing.

Aristotle precisely points out that moral virtue goes beyond the mere act of
intellectually identifying the right thing to do. Instead, it is the condition of one’s
character by which the agent is able to manage her emotions or feelings.

Note that Aristotle does not say, “Remove all feelings.” Instead, he
sees that cultivating one’s character lies in learning to manage
one’s feelings.

The emotions are, as much as reason itself, part of what makes one
a human being.

There is a popular Filipino saying: “tulak ng bibig; kabig ng dibdib” (literally,

“The mouth says one thing, but the heart drives you to do another thing.”). This
saying can mean that what an individual says, and in that sense what an
individual’s mind or intellect dictates what one ought to do, can sometimes be
overcome by what her feelings actually drive her to do.

Aristotle precisely points out that moral virtue goes beyond the mere act of
intellectually identifying the right thing to do. Instead, it is the condition of one’s
character by which the agent is able to manage her emotions or feelings.

Thus, part of the genius of Aristotle is his realization that it is possible that there
can be a disconnect between intellectual knowledge of the good and the actual
ability of an individual to perform accordingly. The latter is mainly a function
of character formation, that is, of habituating the proper management of one’s
feelings.
Aristotle accepts that feelings cannot be set aside in favor of some illusory, purely
intellectual acceptance of the good. Instead, he sees moral virtue as a matter of
habitually managing one’s feelings in the rightful manner. As his famous line
from Book II of the Nicomachean Ethics puts it: “Anyone can get angry - that is
easy …; but to do this to the right person, to the right extent, at the right time,
with the right motive, and in the right way, that is not for everyone, nor is it
easy.”

Doing the right thing for Aristotle is being able to manage one’s feelings so that
she is actually driven or propelled to do what she already sees (intellectually)
as right.

What does it say about emotions and feelings in

informed decision-making?

The responsible moral / ethical agent then as a supposedly “dispassionate”

moral decision-maker is an unrealistic ideal. The passions or feelings do not
necessarily detract from making an informed moral decision.

One can even argue that making a moral decision, because it is all about
what she values, cannot but involve her most serious feelings. What she must
do then as to educate and to cultivate her feelings so that they do not remain
in the pre-conventional level, that is, of self-centered feelings reducible to
individualistic notions of pleasure and pain.

The morally developed or mature individual or agent therefore must

have honed her intellectual capacity to determine the relevant elements in a
moral situation, including the moral principles to explore.

On top of that, she must also have cultivated her feelings so that she
neither simply gives in to childish emotions, nor does she also dismiss the
“right feelings” required for a truly informed moral decision.

The mature moral agent realizes that she is both a product of many
forces, elements, and events, all of which shape her situation and options for a
decision.

She also realizes that she is not merely a puppet of external causes. Instead,
a meaningful moral decision is one that she makes in full cognizance of where she
is coming from, and of where she ought to go.
 In one sentence, tell me, what is whole point of this
section FEELINGS IN MORAL DELIBERATION

2.THE MORAL (ETHICAL) AGENT

A. WHO ONE IS

The individual human is tasked to think about what is “right” and why it is
so, and to choose to do so. Who is that individual? Who one is, in the most
fundamental sense, is another major topic in the act of philosophizing. Who one is
is the Filipino answer of Filipino Philosopher Ramon Castillo Reyes to the famous
Greek famous saying “Epimeleia he auto” famously translated into English as
“Know thyself”. Philosopher Reyes explained that said Who one is is a cross-
point.

B. CROSS-POINTS

By this he means that one’s identity, who is or who I am, is a product of many
forces and events that happened outside of one’s choosing. Philosopher Reyes
identifies four (4) cross-points:

1. The physical,
2. The interpersonal,
3. The social, and
4. The historical

Who one is, firstly, is the function of the physical events in the past and material
factors in the present that one did not have the choice in. You are a member of the
species Homo sapiens and therefore possess the capacities and limitations endemic
to human beings everywhere. You inherited the genetic material of both your
biological parents. Your body has been shaped and continues to be conditioned by
the given set of environmental factors that are specific to your corner of the globe.
All of these are given; they have happened or are still happening whether you
want to or not. You did not choose to be a human being, nor to have this particular
set of biological parents, nor to be born in and/or grow up in such a physical
environment (I.e., for Filipinos to be born in an archipelago with a tropical climate
near the equator along the Pacific Ring of Fire, with specific set of flora and fauna,
which shape human life in this country to a profound degree).
 The person is a product of interpersonal cross-point of many events and
factors outside of one’s choosing. One did not choose her own parents, and yet her
personality, character traits, and her overall way of doing things and thinking about
things have all been shaped by her parents and how they brought her up. All of
these are also affected by nthe people surrounding her: siblings, relatives,
classmates, playmates, and eventually workmates. Thus, who one is - in the sense
of one’s character or personality - has been shaped by one’s relationships as well
as the physical factors that affect how one thinks and feels. Even Jose Rizal once
argued what Europeans mistook as Filipinos “laziness” was actually a function of
the tropical climate and natural abundance in the archipelago. Filipinos supposedly
did not need to exert effort themselves as much as Europeans in their cold climate
and barren lands were forced to do.

Reflect on above’s statement about Filipinos’

“laziness”: How about the OFW? What do foreign
employers say about them? Is Jose Rizal wrong?

Re-read the last two sentences of the paragraph

above and contemplate.

Answer the questions: a) Is Jose Rizal wrong? Why?

b) What explains the OFW phenomenon?

The third cross-point for Philosopher Reyes is the societal “who you is” is
shaped by one’s society. The term “society” here pertains to all the elements of the
human group - as opposed to the natural environment - that one is a member of.
“Culture” in its varied aspects is included here. Reyes argues that “who one is” is
molded in large part by the kind of society and culture - which, for the most part,
one did not choose - that one belongs to. Filipinos have their own way of doing
things (e.g., pagmamano), their own system of beliefs and values (e.g., closely-knit
family ties, etc.), and even their own notions of right and wrong (e.g., a communal
vs an individualistic notion of rights). This third cross-point interacts with the
physical and interpersonal factors that the individual and her people are immersed
into or engaged in.

The fourth cross-point Reyes names is the historical, which is simply the
events that one’s people has undergone. In short, one’s people’s history shapes
“who one is” right now. For example, the Philippines had a long history of
colonization that affected how Philippine society has been formed and how
Philippine culture has developed. This effect, in turn, shapes the person who is a
member of Philippine society. A major part of Philippine history is the
Christianization of the islands during the Spanish conquest. Christianity, for good
or bad, has formed Philippine society and culture, and most probably the individual
Filipino, whether she may be Christian herself or not. The historical cross-point
also interacts with the previous three (physical, interpersonal, and societal). Each
cross-point thus crosses over into the others as well.

C. PROJECT FOR ONE’S SELF

However, being a product of these cross-points is just one side of “Who you
is”. According to Reyes, “who you is” is also a project for one’s self. This happens
because man has freedom. This freedom is not absolute: one does not become
something because one chooses to be. Even if one wants to fly, he cannot, unless
she finds a way to invent a device that can help her do so. This finite freedom
means that one has the capacity to give herself a particular direction in life
according to her own ideal self. Thus, for Reyes, “Who you is” is a cross-point, but
in an an existential level, he argues that the meaning of one’s existence is in the
intersection between the fact that one’s being is a product of many forces outside
her choosing and her ideal future for herself. We can see that ethics plays a big role
in this existential challenge of forming one’s self. What one ought to do in one’s
life is not dictated by one’s physical, interpersonal, societal, or historical
conditions. What one ought to do is also not abstracted from one’s specific
situation.One always comes from somewhere. One is always continuously being
shaped by many factors outside of one’s own free will. The human individual thus
always exists in the tension between being conditioned by external factors and
being a free agent. The human individual never exists in a vacuum as if she were a
pure rational entity without any embodiment and historicity. The moral / ethical
agent is not a calculating, unfeeling machine that produces completely objective
and absolute correct solutions to even the most complex moral / ethical problems.

Now, can you clearly explain this statement “Who are you?”