BSFAS1_GNED 02 ETHICS Learning Module 7

Prof. Armina B. Pugay

Republic of the Philippines
CAVITE STATE UNIVERSITY
Naic Campus
Brgy. Bucana, Naic, Cavite

FISHERIES AND AQUATIC SCIENCES DEPARTMENT

First Semester, AY 2022 – 2023
GNED 02: ETHICS
Bachelor of Science in Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
First Year
MODULE 7

Moral Development

I. What the Module is all about?

The module is about moral character and moral development as well as the Kohlberg’s stages of moral
development. The module also includes the theory of Aristotle and Giligan.

Module Content
- Moral Character
-Moral Development
II. What are expected to learn?
After the completion of the module, students should be able to:
1. Determine the difference between moral character and moral development
2. Realize the importance of moral character in moral development
3. Analyze the theories of moral development of Aristotle. Kohlberg and Gilligan

III. (Pre-Test) Study Guide Questions:

Answer the following questions:

1. What is Moral Character?
2. What is Moral Development
3. Cite the Theories of Moral Development discussed in the module
4. Which among the theories you like best? Aristotle? Kohlberg? Or Gilligan? Justify your answer.

IV. SELF-LEARNING ACTIVITY

Introduction

Virtue and good character are based on a sense of self-esteem and self-confidence is a perception of Aristotle.
Virtue (Latin: virtus) is moral excellence. A virtue is a trait or quality that is deemed to be morally good and
appreciated as a foundation of principle and good moral being. Personal virtues are characteristics valued as
encouraging collective and individual greatness. This means, it is a behavior that shows high moral standards.
Doing what is right and avoiding what is wrong. The opposite of virtue is vice.

Temperance, prudence, courage (or fortitude), and justice are the four classic cardinal virtues in Christianity.
Christianity derives the three theological virtues of faith, hope and love (charity) excerpt from 1 Corinthians 13,
combining them make the seven virtues. Buddhism's four brahmavihara ("Divine States") can be regarded as
virtues in the European sense.

Association of an alchemical process, leads to the development of virtue wherein the internal virtues that we
correlate with the mind are recognized as the minerals that provide us also the healthy biological formation of
our bodies.

The word "character" is obtained from the Ancient Greek word "charaktêr", referring to a sign impressed upon a
coin. Later it came to mean a viewpoint by which one thing was told apart from others. There are two
approaches when dealing with moral character, that is, Normative ethics involve moral standards that exhibit
right and wrong conduct. It is a test of proper behavior and clarifying what is right and wrong. Applied ethics
involve specific and controversial issues along with a moral choice and tend to include situations where people
agree or opposed to the issue.

Moral character is the presence or lack of virtues such as integrity, courage, fortitude, honesty, and loyalty. In
other words, it means that you are a good person and a good citizen with a sound moral scope.

According to V. Campbell and R. Bond(1982), major sources in influencing character and moral development
include heredity, early childhood experience, modeling by important adults and older youth, peer influence, the
BSFAS1_GNED 02 ETHICS Learning Module 7
Prof. Armina B. Pugay
general physical and social environment, the communications media, the teachings of schools and other
institutions, and specific situations and roles that elicit corresponding behavior.

In the military field, character is important in the leadership development area. Military leaders should not only
"know" theoretically the moral values, but they must exemplify these values.

Plato believed that the soul is divided into three parts of desire: Rational, Appetitive, or Spirited. In order to have
moral character, we must recognize what gives to our overall good and have our spirited and appetitive desires
educated properly, so that they can decide with the guidance provided by the logical part of the soul.

Aristotle mention that there are good people in the world. These are those who demonstrate excellences –
excellences of thought and excellences of character. His phrase for excellences of character – êthikai aretai – we
usually translate as moral virtue or moral excellence. When we talk of a moral virtue or an excellence of
character, the importance is on the combination of qualities that make an individual the sort of ethically worthy
person that he is. Aristotle defines virtuous character at the beginning of Book II in Nicomachean Ethics:
"Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being
determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a
mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect”. In Aristotle's
view, good character is centered on two naturally occurring psychological responses that most people
experience without difficulty: our tendency to take pleasure from self-realizing activity and our tendency to form
friendly feelings toward others under specific circumstances. Based on his view, virtually everyone is qualified of
becoming better and they are the ones responsible for actions that express (or could express) their character.

Abraham Lincoln once stated, "Character is like a tree and reputation like its shadow. The shadow is what we
think of it; the tree is the real thing."

What is Moral character?

Moral character or character is an assessment of a particular individual's durable moral qualities. The concept of
character can suggest a variety of attributes including the presence or lack of virtues such as integrity, courage,
fortitude, honesty, and loyalty, or of good behaviors or habits. Moral character primarily refers to the
accumulation of qualities that characterize one individual from another — although on a cultural level, the set of
moral behaviors to which a social group adheres can be said to unite and define it culturally as distinct from
others. Psychologist Lawrence Pervin defines moral character as "a disposition to express behavior in consistent
patterns of functions across a range of situations."

Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas—the belief that ethics is fundamentally related to what kind of persons
we are. Many of Plato’s dialogues, for example, focus on what kind of persons we ought to be and begin with
examinations of particular virtues, such as nature of justice, piety. temperance, and courage.

On the postulation that what kind of person an individual is constituted by one’s character, the link between
moral character and virtue is evident. We can think of one’s moral character as primarily a function of whether
she has or lacks various moral virtues and vices.

The virtues and vices that comprise one’s moral character are typically realized as dispositions to behave in
certain ways in certain sorts of circumstances. For example, an honest person is liable to telling the truth when
asked. These dispositions are typically recognized as relatively stable and long-term. Further, they are also
typically understood to be robust, that is, reliable across a wide spectrum of conditions. We are doubtful, for
example, to think that an individual who tells the truth to her friends but always lies to her parents and teachers
possesses the virtue of honesty.

Moral character, like most concerns in moral psychology, exists at the crossroads of issues in both normative
ethics and empirical psychology. This indicates that there are possibly two general approaches one could take
when explaining the nature of moral character. One could consider moral character mainly by focusing on
standards set by normative ethics; whether people can or do live up to these standards is irrelevant. Otherwise,
one could approach moral character under the guideline that normative ethics ought to be constrained by
psychology. On this second approach, it is not that the normative/descriptive distinction disappears; instead, it is
just that a theory of moral character ought to be appropriately constrained by what social psychology tells us
moral agents are in fact like. Moreover, precisely because virtue approaches make character and its components
central to ethical theorizing, it seems appropriate that such approaches take the psychological data on character
and its components seriously. This desire for a psychologically sensitive ethics partly explains the recent revival
of virtue ethics, but it also leads to several challenges to the idea that agents possess robust moral characters.

What is Moral Development?

BSFAS1_GNED 02 ETHICS Learning Module 7
Prof. Armina B. Pugay
Moral development refers to the ways we recognize right from wrong as we grow and mature. Very young
children generally do not have the same level of moral development as adults.

Think about your behavior as a young child. How did you determine if something was right or wrong, or good or
bad? Did you follow what your parents did? Did you copy the behavior of your friends? At one time or another,
you probably did both. When were you able to decide for yourself what was right and what was wrong? Do you
rely your decisions on societal or cultural laws? For example, is it wrong to steal because the law says it is
wrong? Do you ever feel that the morally correct decision conflicts with the law?

For example, facing a situation where your mother’s life is at stake and requires a specific medicine to be
treated. Unfortunately, that medicine is costly, and the family has no means. Would it be proper to steal the
medicine to save her life? These are the types of questions that Lawrence Kohlberg asked while studying moral
development in human beings.

Lawrence Kohlberg, building upon Jean Piaget's cognitive theory of development, developed three levels with six
stages to reflect our progression through moral development. These levels and stages describe how our ideas of
right and wrong change as we grow. However, Kohlberg did admit that not all people progress through these
changes at the same age due to differences in cognitive functioning. In fact, he stated that some people never
reach full moral development.

Lawrence Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development

Lawrence Kohlberg was a professor at Harvard University. He started as a developmental psychologist and then
shifted to the field of education. He was motivated by the Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget, who is famous for his
theory on moral development of children (Doorey, 2012). Kohlberg was particularly well-known for his theory of
moral development which he interpreted through research studies at Harvard’s Center for Moral Education.
Kohlberg’s theory was derived from interviews performed on boys distributed from early childhood to late
adolescence. In these interviews, he asked participants to reply to hypothetical ethical dilemmas (Heinz
dilemma), such as a man considering stealing a drug to save his dying wife because he cannot afford the drug
and has exhausted other possibilities for paying it. The result of the interviews shows a pattern of responses
which recommended a progression in moral reasoning (Doorey, 2012). As a consequence, Kohlberg thought that
moral development involves process and time, and that people progressed in their moral reasoning through a
series of stages.
Kohlberg then came up with six stages of moral development, which, according to Doorey (2012) could be more
generally classified into three levels. The formulation of Kohlberg’s theory is shown in the table below. As we
can see, the six stages of moral development are divided into three levels and each level has two stages, each of
which has a corresponding social orientation.
LEVEL STAGE SOCIAL ORIENTATION
Punishment; Authority
Stage 1 – Obey or pay
Pre-conventional – Authority – Fear
(Self-focused) Pleasure Orientation
Stage 2 – Self-satisfaction
– “What’s in it for me?”
Peer and Group Acceptance
Stage 3 – Approval-Group Norms
Conventional – Loyalty-Belonging
(Group-focused) Legalistic Orientation
Stage 4 – Law and Order
– Duty to Society
Common Good
Stage 5 – Standards of Society
Post-conventional – Social Contract
(Universal focused) Universal Principles
Stage 6 – Decision of Conscience
– Logical Moral Principles
Chart (2016): Adapted from the notes of Prof. Dennis Temporal during the General Education Training for
Trainees (CHED-Ateneo Ethics Course) last October 2016 in Ateneo de Manila University.

Pre-conventional Level
BSFAS1_GNED 02 ETHICS Learning Module 7
Prof. Armina B. Pugay
The pre-conventional level, which is focused more on the self, is concerned with the consequences of one’s
action. According to Prof. Dennis Temporal, this level simply follows its own interest while at the same time
avoids sanctions. As observed, the child would rely her judgment on the external consequences (punishment
and reward) of her action having no concept of the society’s conventions on what is right and wrong. At this
level, obedience is based on authority (“Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development,” article online).
And according to Kohlberg, there are two stages in this level.
The first stage is concerned with punishment and authority. In this stage, the child behaves according to
socially acceptable rules or norms because she is told to do so by some authority figure like her parents,
teachers, pastors or clergy and elders in the community. According to Kohlberg (1987, 7), the child obeys
the rules in order to avoid punishment. But Kohlberg argues that her obedience to the rules should be a
result of a better decision rather than just mere conformism.

The second stage is concerned with pleasure orientation. Kohlberg perceives that people behave in the
right way because they thought that doing so means acting in one’s own interest. Therefore, as Kohlberg
sees it, one follows the norms because it is advantageous to her. At this point, decisions are made based
on the rewards one can get in doing an action by following rules (“Lawrence Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral
Development”).

Conventional Level

The conventional level, which is centered more on the group, is involved with societal relationship, with
emphasis on social conformity (Burkhardt and Nathaniel, 2002). According to Kohlberg, people in this level are
more worried with the opinions of others. At this level, moral decisions are based on what the others may tell.
According to Kohlberg, the third and fourth stages of moral development belong to this level.

The third stage is concerned with peer and group acceptance. This stage, according to Kohlberg, is
exemplified by a behavior which seeks to do what will earn the approval of peers. Consequently,
Kohlberg expresses that the reactions of others are somehow the basis for decision-making and
behavior. For this reason, peer and group acceptance become the rule of the day so that an individual
retains relationships with others.

The fourth stage is concerned with the legalistic orientation. This stage, according to Kohlberg, is
characterized by obedience to the law, replying to the obligations of duty, and respect of those in
authority (Burkhardt and Nathaniel, 2002; “Lawrence Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development”). Thus,
this stage emphasizes the upholding of the law, order, doing one’s duty, and obeying social norms.
Kohlberg believes that this stage is important because there is a higher value in obeying the law than by
simply seeking the approval of one’s peers.

Post-conventional Level

The post-conventional level, which is focused on the common good and universal moral principles is the most
challenging aspect (Zecha and Weingartner, 1987, ix). According to Kohlberg (1987), persons at this level make
judgment based on impartial universal moral principles, even when these judgments may conflict with societal
standards. At this level, a person does not consider rules and laws as absolute but a relative one. Consequently,
in this level, laws and rules will only be considered as significant mechanism for upholding harmony and order in
the society. According to Kohlberg, the fifth and sixth stages belong to this level.

The fifth stage is concerned with the common good. In reality, as Kohlberg (1987) exclaims, this stage is
anchored on the understanding of social mutuality and genuine interest in the welfare of others. Laws
and rules are considered as social contracts and these are for the good of the community and for equal
protections of individual rights (Kohlberg, 1987, 9). For this purpose, laws can only be accepted or
approved relative to the common good of the society.

The last stage is concerned with respect for universal principle, such as the principles of justice, dignity,
and equality. That is why, for Kohlberg, the basis of one’s action is not just the common good or a social
contract, but a deeper universal principle. Hence, according to Kohlberg, moral decision is not just based
on the laws and rules of the society, but on one’s conscience.

As mentioned above, individuals mature and develop in progression, that is, from one stage to another. It is
important to note that for Kohlberg, an individual cannot just leap from stage one to, like for instance, stage
four without passing through stages two and three. Therefore, for Kohlberg, one’s moral development is linear
and is ordered hierarchically (Burkhardt and Nathaniel, 2002).

Indeed, Kohlberg’s theory on moral development broke new ground in morality. However, his theory also
received fierce criticism most notably from the American psychologist Carol Gilligan, who argued that Kohlberg’s
theory neglects the patterns manifested on women’s moral development.
BSFAS1_GNED 02 ETHICS Learning Module 7
Prof. Armina B. Pugay

Who is Carol Gilligan?

Carol Gilligan is another American psychologist who earned a Master’s degree in Clinical psychology at Radcliffe
College and earned her PhD in social psychology at Harvard (Ball, 2010). Gilligan acknowledged the influence of
Kohlberg in her thinking while she was working with him as a research assistant (Ball, 2010). But unlike Kohlberg,
Gilligan’s interest is on women’s moral development. Therefore, it could be viewed that Gilligan extended the
coverage of Kohlberg’s moral development by focusing this time on women (Gilligan, 1982, 4).

Thus, it could be speculated that Gilligan’s work challenged Kohlberg’s theory in terms of its generalizability. It is
also interesting to note that Gilligan’s work has opened another venue for a feminist critique (Ball, 2010).

Now, while there seems to be a difference between men and women’s moral perspective, Gilligan claimed that
the difference is not that significant (Gilligan, 1982, 2). In fact, the difference is simply on the distinction
between two modes of thought (of men and women) rather than a generalization about either sex (Gilligan).
However, it is important to note that Gilligan’s theory does not simply aim to show the contrast between men
and women, but how this contrast can eventually become a venue for understanding both of them.

Gilligan’s theory of moral development is composed of three phases, that is, the concern for survival, goodness,
and the imperative of care.

The concern for survival focuses on what is the best for the self. However, it is the phase of moral
development where selfishness takes center stage. Gilligan acknowledged that initially the self-cares for
itself in order to survive (Gilligan, 1982, 74). Hence, anything that can benefit the self will be the basis of
her moral decision. In fact, Gilligan sees it logical that before one cares for another, one must care for
herself first. Hence, one should be responsible first for oneself before being responsible for others
(Gilligan, 1982, 76).

However, according to Gilligan, as the individual matures, she realizes that she is not alone. She then
starts to acknowledge that the self is also related with other selves in the community. Indeed, she
recognizes the presence of other selves in the community. In this moment of realization, the transition
happens when the self-starts to see the others as significant to her life. For Gilligan, the connection to
others will slowly become the basis of moral judgment. This serves as a transition from self-interest to
being concerned with others (Gilligan, 1982, 76). This is practical for Gilligan because the moment the
self begins to see the value of being dependent on others, the self also sees the benefits that it can reap
from it. But it must be remembered that the kind of relationship that the self-had with others is not
genuine because it’s instrumental, that is, it is selfish as it only considers the advantages that it can get
from the relationship. Hence, there is no mutual recognition here.

Second phase focuses on goodness, which includes a sense of sacrifice and responsibility. Hence, in this
phase,
Gilligan (1982, 79) quips, the self prioritizes the other, that is, the self puts the needs of others ahead of
itself. Hence, for Gilligan, the individual in this phase becomes aware that there are societal norms and
expectations. And this awareness allows oneself to be part of the society by adopting these norms or
values (Gilligan, 1982, 79). Thus, as Gilligan notes, a moral person is one who is capable of helping others
and being at the service of others as one’s obligations and responsibilities to others become her primary
concern. It is for this reason that for Gilligan, doing good to others is the basis of moral decisions.

Third phase of moral development, which, according to Gilligan, focuses on the imperative of care. In
this phase, Gilligan notes, the individual attains a deeper appreciation of connectedness with self and
others, including responsibility to self and others as moral equals and a clear imperative to harm no one.
Hence, the basic ethical principle of “non-maleficence” is very important in this phase. It is also
important to note that the individual in this phase goes beyond societal expectations, rather than simply
satisfying social norms and values. And the individual in this phase of moral development takes
responsibility for her choices, in which projected consequences and personal intention become the
motivation for actions, rather than concern for the reactions of others. Here, moral decision is
understood as the exercise of choice and the willingness to accept responsibility for one’s actions
(Gilligan, 1982, 67).

As we can see, the theory discussed above emphasizes the ethics of care. It focuses on the individual’s
responsibility and personal commitment towards oneself, others, and the common good. This ethics of care,
therefore, implies relationship, obligations, and responsibilities towards the other and the world as a whole
(Gilligan, 1982, 62). This also implies for Gilligan that an individual cannot live part from others, and that one’s
BSFAS1_GNED 02 ETHICS Learning Module 7
Prof. Armina B. Pugay
concern for others has a higher value than the concern for personal survival. Indeed, the self can only be “itself”
because of the presence of the others, they are interdependent (Gilligan, 1982, 74).

Analysis

The theories reviewed above lead one to knowledge on the dynamics of morality, specifically on the moral
agent. And one way to understand the moral agent is to begin by knowing what character and its development
is and how this character affects one’s moral decision. Aristotle’s theory on character starts with the idea that as
a rational animal capable of decision making, the human person has to decide morally one way or the other.
One’s decision, according to Aristotle, is affected by one’s character. And if one accepts that a moral act is
something that would eventually lead to a better life in the society, then that person would be willing to do such
act. In detail, as Aristotle claims, a virtuous man wants to do good because that is what his preferences and
desires dictate, he to do. Thus, a virtuous individual is one who does the right thing based on moderation. And
she will be cautious not falling into two extremes, that is, excess and deficiency.

Moreover, another way to understand the dynamics of morality is to understand the moral development of the
human person. Kohlberg and Gilligan offer us two frameworks of moral development, each complementing the
other. Kohlberg focuses on men while Gilligan focuses on women. Both frameworks are adopted in order to
understand the two modes of thinking in relation to moral decision-making process of the individual.

Understanding the views, Kohlberg discussions tackles about three different stages of moral development. He
confirms that these stages are hierarchical and in the process of development, one cannot just proceed to a
higher stage without passing through the lower ones. As an implication of such a theory, one realizes that as one
matures in age and wisdom, one also matures in moral decision making. Nevertheless, one’s moral development
takes time. It is not something that is done in few years. Undeniably, the stages in Kohlberg’s theory indicate
that moral development is not an overnight process. It is a life-long process. It is something that an individual
should work on every day of her life. As one matures and develops in wisdom, a moral agent has to expand her
moral horizon, that is, from simple fear and avoidance of punishment towards the highest stage which is based
on universal principles. But at the end of the day, the moral agent has to be responsible whatever stage one
reached.

Gilligan’s theory of moral development, on the other hand, is comprised of three phases, that is, the concern for
survival, goodness, and the imperative of care. What this suggests is that for Gilligan, moral decision making
involves not only the consideration of the self, but also the good of the entire society. According to Gilligan, as
one grows in a certain family or society, one begins to understand the value of self and as well as the others.
Gilligan believes that this value of self and others determines one’s moral decision. Moreover, the three phases
in Gilligan’s theory of moral development imply that the standard or criteria for moral decision is caring for the
others and the world at large.

In the end, however, it must be noted that Aristotle, Kohlberg and Gilligan’s theories of moral development
should be regarded simply as guideposts in moral decision making; they should not be taken as absolute. One
reason for this is that there are quite a number of famous theories of moral development. Emphasis was given
to Aristotle, Kohlberg and Gilligan because the author believe that their theories are the most suitable in this
perspective.

Conclusion

This module explores the concept of moral character and its development. It also utilizes the moral philosophy
of three influential moral philosophers, namely, Aristotle, Kohlberg and Gilligan.

What we realized from the reading above is that a moral character is something that a human person develops
as he grows and matures. Hence, a moral character is habituated, nurtured, and cultivated with the willingness
and support of the person. In this process, however, the moral agent has to be actively engaged.

In terms of moral development, both Kohlberg and Gilligan presented different stages and/or phases in the
moral agent’s life. Kohlberg offers six stages while Gilligan three. At this context, we learned that Kohlberg
focuses on men’s moral development while Gilligan focuses on women. Lastly, we also learned that both
philosophers acknowledged the importance of the moral development of men and women.

V. Module Requirement:

Activity to be done.
Draw a chart and trace your life’s journey to show where you are now in Kohlberg’s moral
development. Justify your answer.

VI. References:
BSFAS1_GNED 02 ETHICS Learning Module 7
Prof. Armina B. Pugay

Agdalpen, Renato T. et. al, Ethics: Ako at ang Kagandahang Asal Bilang Isang Filipino. Mindshapers Co., Inc.
2019
Bauzon, Prisciliano T., A Comprehensive Handbook in Ethics of Moral Philosophy., Natiinal Bookstore, 2011
Bulaong, Oscar G. et al. Ethics Foundation of Moral Valuation, Rex Book Store Inc. 2018
Ball, L. (2010). “Carol Gilligan.” Retrieved from https://www.feministvoices.com/carol-gilligan/ accessed on 04
April 2018.
Beauchamp, T. L. (2001). Philosophical Ethics (3rd ed). Boston: McGraw Hill.
Burkhardt, M. A. and Nathaniel, A. K. (2002). Ethics and issues in Contemporary Nursing. Singapore: Thomson
Learning Asia.
De Guzman Jens Micah et al. Ethics Principle of Ethical Behavior in Modern Society,Mutya Publishing Co. Inc.
2017.
Doorey, M. (2012) “Lawrence Kohlberg.” Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/biography/Lawrence-
Kohlberg accessed on 04 April 2018.
Durant, W. (1926). The story of philosophy. New York: Washington Square Press.
Flanagan, O. and Rorty, O. (1990). Identity, character, and morality. Cambridge, USA: MIT Press.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. USA: Harvard University
Press.
Hall, E. T. (1973). The Silent Language. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press.
Kohlberg, L. (1987). The philosophy of moral development. New York: Harper and Row.
Kohlberg, L. (1987). “Conscience as principled responsibility: On the philosophy of stage six.” in Zecha, G. and
Weingartner, P. (eds.). Conscience: an interdisciplinary view. Holland: D. Reidel Publishing.
“Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development.” Retrieved from
http://www.waunakee.k12.wi.us/faculty/lcarothers/English10/Mockingbird/Kohlbergs%20Stages.pdf accessed
on 03 April 2018.
“Lawrence Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development.” Retrieved from
http://www.suttonclassroom.com/uploads/9/0/6/0/9060273/lawrence_kohlberg_chart.pdf accessed on 03
April 2018.
“Moral Development.” Retrieved from http://www.healthofchildren.com/M/Moral-Development.html accessed
on 03 April 2018. See also https://philonotes.com/index.php/2017/11/27/racism-and-immigration/.
Temporal, D. (2016). Notes on Ethics Training. Ateneo De Manila University.
Yarza, Ignatius (1994). History of Ancient Philosophy. Manila: Sinag-Tala Publishers.
Zecha, G. and Weingartner, P. (eds.) (1987). Conscience: an interdisciplinary view. Holland: D. Reidel Publishing.
https://philonotes.com/index.php/moral-development/
https://iep.utm.edu/moral-ch/#SH1b