Republic of the Philippines

PARTIDO STATE UNIVERSITY

Camarines Sur

MODULE 4
MORAL CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT AND DISPOSITION

Name of Student: Week Number: ______7 & 8______

Course Code: ______GE8___________________ Name of Faculty: Marietta Z. Terrobias
Course Title: Ethics_______________________

I. Objectives
At the end of the discussion, students are expected to:
a. Define the moments of moral formation
b. Interpret the relationship between individual acts and character
c. Recognize the stages of moral development
d. Analyze feelings and the personal and moral experiences
e. Determine the reasonable and emotional responses
f. Develop a process of moral decision making.
g. Develop a sense of accountability on each moral decision made.

II. Lesson

Introduction

The nature and the cognitive and emotional determinants of moral judgment have been
empirically studied since the emergence of the science of psychology. Although one of the first
systematic theories began with Piaget (1965), the first systematic theory based on empirical
research was introduced by Lawrence Kohlberg (1969). Kohlberg’s theory is regarded as a rationalist
theory since it assumes that the main determinant of moral judgment is rational thinking processes,
even though it is thought that emotional or intuitive processes are also involved – at least in part – in
moral judgment.

Kohlberg’s Three Levels

There are three levels (in a total of six stages) in Kohlberg’s

theory of moral development in a hierarchical structure. These three
levels follow a stable sequence but qualitatively correspond to
different types of moral reasoning. The first and primary motivation
of the first level (pre-conventional morality), which includes the first
two stages (obedience and punishment; individual interests), is to
avoid punishment and attain pleasure. The individual at the first
stage does not understand or care that other people can have similar
wishes and desires besides their own desires. Thus, the person in this
stage acts in an egoist manner.

Then, in the second stage, the person realizes that she can
differentiate her own desires from the wishes of other people and Lawrence Kohlberg, who created a
the authority figures. At the second level (conventional morality), provocative theory of moral
which includes the third and fourth stages (interpersonal; development. In his view, “Moral
development consists of a sequence
authority), the individual has a motivation that is concerned with of qualitative changes in the way
an individual thinks
 Republic of the Philippines
PARTIDO STATE UNIVERSITY
Camarines Sur

mutual relations and expectations. The main motivation of the individuals at this level is to be
accepted and socially approved by others and, in this context, to fulfill the orders of those who are
hierarchically superior. Therefore, at this level, people define interpersonal relations through their
place in society.

At the last and third level (the post-conventional morality), the individual develops an
autonomous moral conception, while in moral judgment she often refers to a universal set of
principles (such as justice and fairness). This stage corresponds to a universal set of moral principles
that all people must follow, according to Kohlberg, and moral superiority is characterized as reaching
this stage. The normative moral superiority, which a rational human being as in Kant’s categorical
imperative must achieve as a result of cognitive reasoning, is a sense of universal justice. The
individual in this stage sees morality as an end, not as a means.

Assessing Morality

Kohlberg scores people’s moral judgments based on how they justify their moral judgments
in terms of these three levels (i.e., pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional
moralities). For example, in the well-known Heinz dilemma, the participant reads the following
moral vignette:
A woman was near death from a unique kind of cancer. There is a drug that might save her.
The drug costs $4,000 per dosage. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to
borrow the money and tried every legal means, but he could only get together about $2,000. He
asked the doctor scientist who discovered the drug for a discount or that he let him pay later. But the
doctor scientist refused. Should Heinz break into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or
why not?

According to Kohlberg, the decision of the participant regarding whether Heinz should or
should not steal the drug has no theoretical significance. However, it is theoretically important as to
how the participant justifies her moral judgment. Someone who says that Heinz should not steal the
drug, because if he steals, he must be imprisoned (i.e., avoiding punishment), or Heinz should steal
because if his wife lives he will make Heinz a happier person (self-interest) is scored as having pre-
conventional morality. Someone who states that Heinz should not steal the drug because the legal
rules prohibit it or that Heinz should steal the drug because his wife would expect him to be a good
husband is scored as having conventional morality. Someone who says Heinz should steal the drug
because everyone has the right to live or Heinz should not take the drug because others may need
this medicine and everyone’s life is equally important (i.e., universal human rights) is scored as
having post-conventional morality.

According to Kohlberg (1971), moral development does not progress only with age (i.e.,
biological maturity); however, moral reasoning should be related to cognitive reasoning capacity. It
has been found that the individuals who scored as having post-conventional morality showed higher
performance in some tasks measuring cognitive reasoning (Kuhn et al. 1977). However, the theory of
Kohlberg’s moral development was later criticized by different theoretical perspectives (cf., Haidt
2001). It is thought that empathy capacity, rather than cognitive development (e.g., Hoffman 1993),
may be an important factor in determining moral reasoning. However, Kohlberg (1981) actually
believes that the ability to take perspective, a cognitive capacity, is the fundamental determinant
 Republic of the Philippines
PARTIDO STATE UNIVERSITY
Camarines Sur

LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3

Pre-conventional Level Conventional Level Post conventional Level
No Internalization Intermediate Internalization Intermediate Internalization

Stage 1 Stage 3 Stage 6

Heteronomous Morality
Individuals pursue their own
interests but let others do
the same. What is right
involves equal exchange
Mutual Interpersonal
Expectations, and
Interpersonal Conformity
Individuals value trust, caring,
and loyalty to others as a
basis for moral judgements
Social Contact or Utility
and individual Rights
Individuals reason that values
rights and principles undergo or
transcend the law

Stage 2 Stage 4 Stage 6

Individualism, Purpose and
Exchange
Children obey because adults
tell them to obey. People
base their moral decisions
on fear of punishment
Social System Morality
Moral judgments are based on
understanding and the social
order, law, justice and duty
Universal Ethical Principles
The person has developed
moral judgments that are based
on universal human rights.
When faced with a dilemma
between law and conscience, a
personal individualized
conscience is followed

Figure 1 Kohlberg’s Three Levels and Six Stages of Moral Development

Kohlberg (1986) proposed that moral development consists of three levels with two stages at each
level (see figure 1).

1. The preconventional level is based primarily on punishments (stage 1) or rewards (stage 2) that
come from the external world. In regard to the Heinz story, at stage 1, an individual might say that
Heinz should not steal the drug because he might get caught and sent to jail. At stage 2, the person
might say he should not steal the drug because the druggist needs to make a profit on the drug

2. At the conventional level, the individual abides by standards, such as those learned from parents
(stage 3) or society's lavs (stage 4) Ar stage 3, an indi vidual might say that Heinz should steal the
drug for his wife because that is what people expect a good husband to do At stage 4, the person
might say that it is natural for Heinz to want to save his wife but that the law says it sull is always
wrong to steal.

3. At the postconventional level, the individual recognizes alternative moral courses, explores the
options, and then develops a personal moral code. The code reflects the principles generally
accepted by the community (stage 5) or it reflects more abstract principles for all of humanity (stage
 Republic of the Philippines
PARTIDO STATE UNIVERSITY
Camarines Sur

6). At stage 5. a person might say that the law was not set up for these circumstances, so Heinz can
steal the drug It is not really right, but he is justified in doing it. At stage 6, the individual evaluates
alternatives but recognizes that Heine's wife's life is more important than a law.

Kohlberg believed that these levels and stages develop in a sequence and are age related.
Some evidence for the sequence of Kohlberg's stages has been found, although few people reach
stage 6 (Colby & others, 1983). Children are often in stages 1 and 2, although in the later elementary
school years they may be in stage 3. Most adolescents are at stage 3 or 4.

Kohlberg also believed that advances in moral development take place because of the
maturation of thought (especially in concert with Piaget's stages), opportunities for role taking, and
opportunities to discuss moral issues with a person who reasons at a stage just above one's own. In
Kohlberg's view, parents contribute little to children's moral thinking because parent-child
relationships are often too power oriented.

Evaluating Kohlberg's Theory

Kohlberg's ideas stimulated considerable interest in the field of moral development. His
provocative view continues to promote considerable research about how people think about moral
issues (Lapsley & Narvaez, 2004).

At the same time, his theory has numerous critics. One criticism is that moral reasoning does
not necessarily mean moral behavior. When people are asked about their moral reasoning, what
they say might fit into Kohlberg's advanced stages, but their actual behavior might be filled with
cheating, lying, and stealing. The cheaters, liars and thieves might know what is right and what is
wrong but still do what is wrong.

Another major criticism is that Kohlberg's view does not adequately reflect interpersonal
relationships and concerns for others that it focuses too much on the intra personal dimension of
moral development Kohlberg's theory is thus a justice perspective concerned with the rights of the
individual who stands alone and independently makes moral decisions. In contrast the care
perspective, which lies at the heart of Carol Gilligan's (1982) theory of moral development, views
people in terms of their connectedness with others and focuses on interpersonal communication
relationships and concern for others. Gilligan faults Kohlberg for greatly underplaying the care
perspective in moral development. She believes he may have done so because he is a male, because
most of his research was with males rather than females, and because he used male responses as a
model for his theory. However, not everyone adopts Gilligan's view, either, and even she argues that
at the highest level of moral development the individual and relationship aspects of moral reasoning
are likely to be integrated.

III. Activities
a. Suggested readings
b. Online Discusion/Debate
c. On line opinion posting
c. Reflective Journal

IV. APPLICATION AND ASSESSMENT

 Republic of the Philippines
PARTIDO STATE UNIVERSITY
Camarines Sur

1. Case Study. Read the Case of Tracy Latimer and answer the given questions.

Tracy Latimer Tracy Latimer, a 12-year-old victim of cerebral palsy, was killed by her father in
1993. Tracy lived with her family on a prairie farm in Saskatchewan, Canada. One Sunday
morning while his wife and other children were at church, Robert Latimer put Tracy in the cab of
his pickup truck and piped in exhaust fumes until she died. At the time of her death, Tracy
weighed less than 40 pounds, and she was described as “functioning at the mental level of a
three-month-old baby.” Mrs. Latimer said that she was relieved to find Tracy dead when she
arrived home. She said that she “didn’t have the courage” to do it herself. Robert Latimer was
tried for murder, but the judge and jury did not want to treat him harshly. The jury found him
guilty of only second-degree murder and recommended that the judge ignore the mandatory 10-
year sentence. The judge agreed and sentenced him to one year in prison, followed by a year of
confinement to his farm. But the Supreme Court of Canada stepped in and ruled that the
mandatory sentence must be imposed. Robert Latimer entered prison in 2001 and was paroled
in 2008. Legal questions aside, did Mr. Latimer do anything wrong? This case involves many of
the issues that we saw in the other cases. One argument is that Tracy’s life was morally precious,
and so her father had no right to kill her. In his defense, it may be said that Tracy’s condition was
so catastrophic that she had no prospects of a “life” in any but a biological sense. Her existence
consisted in pointless suffering, and so killing her was an act of mercy. Considering those
arguments, it appears that Robert Latimer acted defensibly. His critics, however, made other
points.

Guide Questions
1. Was Robert Latimer given a lenient sentence by the trial court? Support your answer.
2. What reasons or arguments can be given for the following:
a. The wrongness of killing
b. The wrongness of discriminating against the handicapped.