ETHICS CHAPTER 3: MORAL CHARACTER

I. THE FOUNDATIONS OF MORALITY QUESTIONS:

The Development of Moral Character
 Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustine and St.
Thomas Aquinas had the conviction that
ethics is fundamentally related to what kind
of persons we are.
 On the assumption that what kind of person
one is constituted by one’s character.
 Who are the people who contributed
much to your character?
 Will there also be a person who can
influence us immorally?
STAGES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT

 Etymologically, the term “character” comes  By Lawrence Kohlberg

from the Ancient Greek term Charakter,
which initially referred to the mark
impressed upon a coin.
 The term character refers more generally
to any distinctive feature by which one
thing is distinguished from others.
 In philosophy, the term character is
typically used to refer to the particularly
moral dimension of a person. Aristotle
often used the term  for character,
which is etymologically linked to “ethics”
and “morality”
 A human person who is acting excellently
consistently is said to have a great moral
character.
 Regardless of our culture, we all develop
in our moral thinking through a series of
set stages.
 Moral education should help children
develop their moral thinking toward more
advanced stages.
 Moral Psychology studies what IS moral
development.
 Moral Philosophy considers what
OUGHT TO BE.
 The IS of psychology and the OUGHT of
philosophy must be integrated before one
can have a reasoned basis for moral
education.

 Excellence is a quality that makes an  Central to moral education is the problem

individual a good member of its kind.
Excellence is connected to its function.
 We judge the moral character of the person
based on consistency.
 Character is tested across time.
of relativity of values.
 Are there universal values that children
should develop?
 Kohlberg’s theory of moral education is
both psychological and philosophical.

 Moral character is the force behind moral  There are three Stages: (Pre-
action. Conventional [Stage 1 and 2];
Conventional Stage [Stage 3 and 4]; and
Post-Conventional Stage [Stage 5 and 6]

PRE-CONVENTIONAL (Self-Focused)
 concerned with concrete
consequences to individuals, focusing
on pursuing concrete interest, while
avoiding sanctions.
Stage 1: Punishment: Authority
orientation [Obey or Pay / Authority—Fear].
 What is right is to obey the rules, avoid
physical damage to persons and
property. The reason is that one wants
to avoid punishment. Also, there is the
deterrence to power and position. In
relation to social perspective, what is
considered is simply one’s own interest
as there is still no sense of another’s
point of view.
Stage 2: Pleasure Orientation [Self-
satisfaction / What is in it for me?”
 Hedonistic orientation with an
instrumental view of human relations.
Beginning notions of reciprocity, but
with emphasis on exchange of favors—
” You scratch my back and I will scratch
yours.”
 What is right is one’s immediate
interest, and letting others act also in
their own interest. Thus, each to his
own. What is right is what is fair. You
do your thing, I do my thing; we have
fair, equal exchange.
CONVENTIONAL (Group-Focused)
 concerned with fulfilling role
expectations, maintaining and
supporting the social order, and
identifying persons or groups involved
in this order.
Stage 3: Peer and Group Acceptance
Orientation (Approval—Group Norm/
Loyalty—Belongingness)
 “Good boy” orientation / interpersonal
concordance orientation: seeking to
maintain expectations and win approval
of one’s immediate group.
 What is deemed right is what pleases or
helps others; what is approved by
others; what reinforces mutual
relationships such as trust, loyalty,
respect, gratitude.
Stage 4: Legalistic Orientation (Law and
Order / Duty to Society)
 Social Structure Orientation.
Orientation to authority, law, and duty,
to maintaining a fixed order, whether
social or religious, assumed as a
primary value.
 What is right is doing one’s duty;
showing respect for laws, authority, and
society, and contributing to the
maintenance of society and institutions.
 One’s reason for doing one’s duty and
the like is that, action which breaks the
social or moral agreements impairs the
system, which is a value. It would be
hazardous to digress from conformity,
from social norms.
POST-CONVENTIONAL (Group-Focused)
 concerned with fulfilling role
expectations, maintaining and
supporting the social order, and
identifying persons or groups involved
in this order.
 There is the effort to define the moral
values and principles than have validity
and application apart from the authority
of groups or persons and the ability to
see beyond laws and norms of society.
 It is here that one examines, adopts,
and applies the different ethical
frameworks or principles.
Stage 5: Common Good (Standards of
Society / Social Contract)
 Social contract orientation, with
emphasis on equality and mutual
obligation within a democratically
established order.
 This stage includes what is right;
individual rights and standards which
have been critically examined, and
agreed upon; one says “these rights
have been examined, and since they
are right, they are the ones to be
followed.”
 Good of the many—CONCENSUS
RATHER THAN MAJORITY RULES
Stage 6: Universal Principles (Decision of
Conscience / Logical Moral Principles)
 Principles of conscience that have
logical comprehensiveness and
universality. Highest value placed on
human life, equality, and dignity.
 Kohlberg was not able to observe this
stage in his group, and thus, he
projected it. What is right is following
self-chosen ethical principles based on
judgments that are universalizable,
irreversible, and consistent.
 What is right are the universal principles
of justice, and the reasons given are the
validity of universal moral principles and
the sense of personal commitment to
these principles.
 The social perspective taken is the
moral point of view from which even the
social arrangements are derived; from
this universalizable moral point of view,
moral judgments are made.
 Stage 1 and 2 are typical of young
children and delinquents and are
described as ‘pre-moral’ since
decisions are made largely on the basis
of self-interest.
 Stage 3 and 4 are the conventional
stage at which most of the adult
orientation operates.
 The final “principled” stages are
characteristic of 20 to 25 percent of the
adult population, with perhaps 5 to 10
percent arriving at Stage 6.
 At Stage 1, life is valued in terms of
power or possessions of the person
involved.
 At Stage 2, life is valued for its
usefulness in satisfying the needs of the
individual in question or others.
 At Stage 3, life is valued in terms of
individual’s relations with others and
their valuation of him.
 At Stage 4, life is valued in terms of
social or religious laws.
 Only at Stage 6 is each life seen as
inherently worthwhile aside from all
other considerations.
 In terms of motivation for moral action,
at the lowest stage, the individual acts
to avoid punishment or to obtain
exchange of favors; at the highest level,
to avoid self-condemnation.
 A study of Holstein indicates that
children who were advanced in moral
judgment had parents who were also
advanced in moral judgment.
 Quite separately, however, the parents’
tendency to stimulate reciprocal role-
taking was also related to the child’s
maturity. The parent who sought the
child’s view, who elicited comparison of
views in dialogue, had more advanced
children.
SUMMARY
PRE-CONVENTIONAL STAGE
 Stage 1. Punishment: Authority
orientation [Obey or Pay / Authority—
Fear]. –
 Stage 2. Pleasure Orientation [Self-
satisfaction / What is in it for me?” -
CONVENTIONAL STAGE
 Stage 3. Peer and Group Acceptance
Orientation (Approval—Group Norm/
Loyalty—Belongingness) (PEER
PRESSURE)
 Stage 4. Legalistic Orientation (Law
and Order / Duty to Society)
POST - CONVENTIONAL STAGE
 Stage 5. Common Good (Standards of
Society / Social Contract)
 Stage 6. Universal Principles (Decision
of Conscience / Logical Moral
Principles)
 SITUATION ANALYSIS: MR. PETERSON’S DILEMMA
Mr. Peterson teaches a social studies class in
the local high school. Because of his great
rapport with his students, he is known as one
of the best teachers in the school.
One day, after a class discussion of
contemporary problems in America, several
class members approached Mr. Peterson in
his office to tell him that they planned to
boycott the school cafeteria in support of the
migrant farm workers across the country.
Previously, the students had picketed the local
grocery store and passed out leaflets in their
neighborhood. They had also circulated a
petition and had written letters to the school
authorities in an attempt to stop the school
from purchasing non-union lettuce and
grapes. Both of these attempts to change
school policy had failed.
The students indicated that they not only
planned to boycott the cafeteria but hoped to
shut it down by setting up a picket line during
lunch hours.
The students told Mr. Peterson about the
planned boycott because of the many class
discussions in which they had talked about the
American tradition of protest. They also
insisted that the success of the boycott
depended on Mr. Peterson not breaking their
confidence; they did not want the school
administration to know about the plans.
Mr. Peterson feels sure that other teachers
and the administration do not know about the
planned boycott. He also knows that part of
the student body would not be sympathetic to
the boycott and this could result in a physical
confrontation.
According to the school rule, any organized
student gathering on school grounds must be
cleared by school officials. Mr. Peterson also
knows that faculty members are supposed to
notify the school administration of any activity
which may interfere with the school schedule.
Mr. Peterson discussed the various
implications of the boycott with the students.
The students understand these; however, they
are determined to go through with the plan.
Should Mr. Peterson tell the school
administration of the impending boycott and
picket line? Why or why not?
HEINZ’s DILEMMA
 Respondents have no knowledge about
married life.
 Male respondents
 Hypothetical situation
However,
 connection of psychology and
philosophy in establishing moral
perspective on human behavior and
character.
 human person is capable of making
moral decisions that can benefit not
only one’s self but also others.
 one’s maturity depends on his
education and environment.
 ETHICS CHAPTER 4: THE ACT
TWO FACULTIES OF MAN
 INTELLECT – gives man the capacity
to think.
 WILL – gives man the capacity to
make decision
In our actions, which faculty do we
follow?
FEELINGS AND MORALITY
 Western philosophers were reacting to the
position of the church scholars who
asserted that religion is a necessary
foundation for morality.
 Moral decisions must be founded on
religious laws and doctrines.
DAVID HUME
 He believed that virtue is in conformity to
reason. Like truth, morality is discerned
merely by ideas. To distinguish the good
and the bad, we have to consider reason
alone.
 Philosophers during the time of Hume
placed greater emphasis on reason over
feelings.
 Moral decisions would always involve
feelings or emotions.
 Moral decisions/judgments are formed not
by reason alone but through feelings.
 One’s view regarding the goodness and
badness of an action is based on passions,
motives, volitions, and thoughts.
 Whatever action that would give the
spectator a pleasing sentiment would be
considered as morally acceptable, while
those that would be unpleasing to the
spectators would be considered morally
unacceptable. (e.g. feeling of sympathy to
others)
 A behavior is considered to be virtuous if it
is useful or agreeable to people who are
affected by the action being considered.
 Interest should not be for one’s own but for
somebody else, that is, for the interest of
those who would be directly or indirectly
affected by a particular action.
 If an action is useful or agreeable to others
and to one’s self, it is then considered to be
morally acceptable.
 Hume’s ethical theory is an empirical
approach to morality.
 Moral decisions are based not on
judgments based on reason but on
feelings.
 Subjectivity over objectivity
 CRITIQUE: Morality must be absolute and
universal. If it is based on feelings, then
everything will become subjective.
 For the religious moralists, Hume did not
include the role of God in determining the
morality of one’s action; hence, it is weak
and groundless.
 However, usefulness and the good effect of
one’s action can still be the basis in
determining whether such action is
considered morally acceptable or not.
(Utilitarianism)
REASON AND MORALITY
 Plato argued that the function of reason is
to rule the appetites and emotions.
 Mind or intellect (nous) is the immortal part
of the soul gives man the capacity for truth
and wisdom.
 René Descartes held that reason has
prominence over church laws and religious
doctrines.
 Stoics upheld that the human person must
be able to control his passions with reason
in order to live a moral life.
 Decision must be founded on the right
reason (law) for this we have share in
common with the gods.
 Reason is the law.
REASON AND IMPARTIALITY
 Thomas Nagel believed that morality
must be rooted not in feelings or
emotions because that will make
morality subjective. Morality must be
objective.
 Morality should be rooted in reason.
  Feelings should not be the basis of
morality because one’s feelings may be
different from the feelings of others.
 Feelings may be irrational. They may
be products of prejudice, selfishness, or
cultural conditioning.
 One’s moral decision may depend on
the effect of one’s action to the person’s
involved.
THE CASE OF 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
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 and added 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 question aside, did Mr. Latimer do
anything wrong? This case involves many of
the issues that we saw in the other cases.
One argument against Mr. Latimer is that
Tracy’s life was morally precious, and so he
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 had been reduced to
pointless suffering, and so killing her was an
act of mercy.
 Our answer to this moral issue must not
be affected by our emotions, but rather,
by our reason. If our decision is based on
the feelings of the family, our moral
decision will become subjective (moral
relativism) and we may not be able to arrive
at a moral decision that will be acceptable
to everyone else.
 For Robert Latimer, the handicap case was
not the issue. To allow Tracy to live would
be torture because after undergoing major
surgery on her back, hips, and legs, more
major surgeries would still be placed on the
pipeline to cure Tracy. Also, the expenses
of all those procedures.
 According to Robert, Tracy would not be
able to live a happy life due to her
condition.
 The decision of Robert requires reasoning
because a father’s feelings for being the
cause of the death of one’s daughter would
be emotionally unacceptable.
 The basis of morality, for Nagel, must be
on the happiness that one’s action may
cause to others.
 If an action is going to cause harm to
others, then the action is considered to be
evil.
 In terms of moral truth, discovering the
truth can only be made possible if one is
guided by reason.
 Most philosophers would consider this as
the essence of morality.
 The moral right is to do the action that is
supported by rational arguments.
 Moral judgments must be backed up by
good reason.
 Remember: not every reason is good
but they may still be valid.
 It will now be the job of the person to
discern (intellect/reason) which action is
good.
 THE CASE OF TRACY LATIMER
 The act of killing Tracy would be
considered as morally unacceptable
because each individual’s life is precious
and therefore, nobody has the right to
take away one’s life.
 Reason tells us that everyone must be
treated equally and a handicapped
person can still become an effective
member of the society.
Things to remember
 Know the facts first.
 Prejudices must be set aside.
 Man should try to look at things according
to how they are and not how they wanted
them to be.
 In decision-making, IMPARTIALITY is
required. (No decisions must be given
more favor than the others.)
 The basis of morality must be REASON!
8 STEPS: MORAL REASONING PROCESS
1. Gather the Facts
 One should ask not only “What do we
know?” but also “What do we need to
know?” in order to make an intelligent
ethical decision.
2. Define the Ethical Issues
 Issues can be presented as ___ vs.
____. This will help the person analyse
the interests that contradict one
another.
 E.g., the right of the teacher to give a
failing grade to students who are not
academically qualified versus the
obligation of the teacher to become
charitable to students.
3. Review relevant ethical guidelines
 Determine the different ethical
guidelines and determine which can be
best applied to the issue.
 Biblical, constitutional, and natural law
principles must be taken into
consideration.
4. Obtain consultation
 Since no one can be an expert in
making moral decisions, it is important
to consult persons who are more
competent in terms of morality.
 One may consult a religious leader, or
a well-revered teacher, or an elder in a
society who can have more wisdom
than us.
 The view of these people may not be
our final ethical decision but they can at
least serve as a guide to our decisions.
5. List the Alternative Courses of Action
 Making moral decisions require
creative thinking, which will help one
identify various alternative courses of
action.
 The more alternatives that can be
listed, the better the chance that the list
will include some high-quality
alternative for a better decision.
6. Compare alternatives with principles
 Most of the time, the case will already
be resolved at this point because the
principles will eliminate all the other
alternatives except the one which will
uphold a moral value.
 In case that there are no clear decisions
that may come into fore at this point, it
is then necessary to get to the next
step.
7. Weigh the Consequences
 If the moral principles that have a
bearing on the case do not yet provide
a clear decision, then it is necessary to
consider the consequences of an
action.
 It is important to take note of both the
positive and the negative
consequences.
8. Make a decision
 In an ethical dilemma, one has to
undergo the painful process of critical
studies and analyses.
 Decisions must be on the least number
of problems or negative consequences,
and not the one that is devoid of
problems.