Developing Virtue as Habit

Moral character refers to the existence or lack of virtues such as integrity, courage,
fortitude, honesty, and loyalty. To say that a certain person has a good moral character
means that he/she is a good person and a good citizen with a sound moral compass.
I. Moral Character and Virtues
The term "character" is derived from the Greek word “charakter,” which was
initially used as a mark impressed upon a coin. The word "character” later came to mean a
distinct mark by which one thing was distinguished from others, and then chiefly to mean
the assemblage of qualities that distinguish one person from another. This stress on
distinctiveness or individuality tends to merge “character” with personality" in modern
usage. For instance, when thinking of a person's idiosyncratic mannerisms, social gestures,
or habits of dress, we might say that "he has personality" or that “he’s quite a character.”
The use in ethics of the word "character,” however, has a different linguistic history.
At the beginning of Book II of the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle tells us that there are two
(2) distinct of human excellence,
(1) excellence of thought and (2) excellence of character. His phrase for
excellence of (mortal) character, “ethikai aretai,” is often translated as "moral virtue(s)”
and "moral excellence(s)." The Greek “ethikos” (ethical) is the adjective cognate with
“ethos” (character). So, when we speak of a 'virtue' or an excellence of moral character, the
highlighting is not on mere distinctiveness or individuality, but on the blend of qualities
that make a person the ethically admirable individual he/she is.
Moral character, therefore, in a philosophical sense, refers to having or lacking
moral virtue. If one lacks virtue, he/she may have any of the moral vices or may be marked
by a condition somewhere in between virtue and vice, such as continence or incontinence.
Moreover, philosophers usually think that moral character traits, unlike other
personality or psychological traits, have an irreducibly evaluative dimension; that is, they
involve a normative judgment. The agent 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.
II. 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 to build moral character, but those
acts which emanate from moral characters certainly matter in moral development. Hence,
there appears the apparent circular relationship between individual acts and moral
character. A person's actions determine his/her moral character, but moral character itself
develops acts that help in achieving either virtue or vice.
This goes to show that moral development should also be understood in the sense of
human flourishing. This flourishing is attained by the habitual practice of moral and
intellectual excellence, or virtues. In the context of developing morally which also brings
about self-realization and happiness, acting in line with virtues is acting by reason. Indeed,
philosophers like Aristotle hold that the function of a human being consists of activities
which manifest the best states of his/her rational aspect, that is, the virtues.
Virtuous traits of character ought to be stable and enduring and are not mere products of
fortune, but of learning, constant practice, and cultivation. But we have to add that virtuous
traits of character are called excellence of the human being because they are the best
exercise of reason, which is the activity characteristic of human beings. In this sense, the
Greek moralists believe that virtuous acts complete or perfect human life.
Nonetheless, the Greek philosophers think that. It takes someone of good moral character
to determine with regularity and reliability what individual acts are appropriate and
reasonable in certain situations and that it takes someone of good moral character to
decide with regularity and reliability how and when to secure goods and resources for
himself/herself and others. Aristotle thus states that, it is not easy to define in rules which
acts deserve moral praise and blame, and that, these matters require the judgment of the
virtuous person, that is, someone with good moral character.
III. Six Stages of Moral Development
The American psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg is best known for his theory of stages of
moral development. In principle, he agreed with the Swiss clinical psychologist Jean
Piaget's theory of moral development but wanted to develop his ideas further.

Kohlberg pinpointed three (3) distinct levels of moral reasoning each with two (2)
sub-stages composing his so-called Six (6) Stages of Moral Development. He believed that
people could 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 1: Pre- Seen in preschool Stage 1: People make decisions
conventional children, most Punishment based on what is best for
Morality elementary school Avoidance themselves, without regard
students, some and for others' needs or feelings.
junior high school Obedience They obey rules only if
students, and a established by more
few high school powerful individuals; they
students may disobey if they aren't
likely to
get caught. "Wrong"
behaviors are those that
will be punished.
Stage 2: People recognize that others
Exchange also have needs. They may
of Favors try to satisfy others' needs if
their own 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: Seen in a few older Stage 3: People make decisions
Conventional elementary school Good based on what actions will
Morality students, some Boy/Girl please others, especially
junior high school authority figures and other
students, and many individuals with high status
high school (e.g., teachers, popular
students (Stage 4 peers). They are concerned
typically does not about maintaining
appear until the relationships through
high school years) sharing, trust, and loyalty,
and they take other people's
perspectives and
intentions into account
when making decisions.
Stage 4: People look to society as a
Law and whole for guidelines about
Order right or wrong. They know
rules are necessary for
keeping society running
smoothly and believe it is
their "duty" 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 III: Post- Rarely seen before Stage People recognize that rules
conventional college (Stage 6 is 5:Social represent agreements among
Morality extremely rare even in Contract many individuals about
adults) appropriate behavior. Rules
are seen as potentially useful
 mechanisms that can
maintain the general social
order and protect individual
rights, rather than 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: Stage 6 is a hypothetical,
Universal "ideal" stage that few people
Ethical ever reach. People in this
Principle stage adhere to a few
abstract, universal principles
(e.g., equality of all people,
respect for human dignity,
commitment to justice) that
transcend specific norms
and rules. They answer to a
strong inner conscience and
willingly
disobey laws that violate
their own ethical principles.