Lesson II: The Moral Agent Developing Virtue as Habit Moral Character refers to the existence or lack of virtues as integrity, courage, fortitude, honesty, and loyalty. 1. Moral Character and Virtue 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 the modern usage. “Moral Character”, therefore, in philosophical sense, refers to having or lacking moral virtue. 2. The Circular Relation of Acts and Character In the process of moral development, there is the relation between acts that build character and moral character itself. Not all acts help to build moral character, but those acts which emanate from characters certainly matter in moral development. 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 excellences of 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, virtuous acts complete or perfect human life. 3. Moral Characters as Dispositions The moral character traits that constitute a person’s moral character are characteristically understood as behavioral and affective dispositions. Among human beings, moral character traits, either virtues or vices, are also considered as dispositions. Moral character traits are those dispositions of character for which it is suitable to hold agents morally responsible. In other words, a good moral character is practically a disposition to do virtuous acts. Oppositely, a bad moral character is, in effect, a disposition to do virtuous deeds. 4. Six Stages of Moral Development The American psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg (1927-1987) is best known for his theory of stages of moral development. In principle, he agreed with the Swiss clinical psychologist Jean Piaget’s (18961980) theory of moral development but wanted to develop his ideas further. Level 1 – Pre-conventional morality Stage 1. Obedience and Punishment Orientation Stage 2. Individualism and Exchange Level 2 – Conventional morality Stage 3. Good Interpersonal Relationships Stage 4. Maintaining the Social Order Level 3 – Post-conventional morality Stage 5. Social Contract and Individual Rights Stage 6. Universal Principles Level Level I: Preconventional Morality Age Range Seen in preschool children, most elementary school students, some junior high school students, and a new high school students Stage Stage 1: Punishmentavoidance and obedience Stage 2: Exchange of favors Level II: Conventional Morality Seen in a few older elementary school students, some junior high students, and many high school students (Stage 4 typically does not appear until the high school years) Stage 3: Good boy/girl Nature of Moral Reasoning People make decisions based on what is best for themselves, without regard for other’s needs or feelings. They obey rules only if established by more powerful individuals; they may disobey if they aren’t likely to get caught. “Wrong” behaviors are those that will be punished. People recognize that others also have need. They may try to satisfy other’s needs if their own need 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. People make decisions based on what actions will please others, especially authority figures and other individuals with high status (e.g., teacher, popular peers). They concerned about maintaining relationships through sharing trust, and loyalty, and they take other people’s perspective and intention to account when making decisions. Level Level III: Postconventional Morality Age Range Rarely seen before college (Stage 6 is extremely rare even in adults) Stage Stage 4: Law and order Stage 5: Social contract Stage 6: Universal ethical principle Nature of Moral Reasoning People look to society as a whole for guidelines about 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. People recognize that rules represent agreements among many individuals about 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 is a hypothetical, “ideal” stage that few people ever reach. People in this 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. 5. Getting to the Highest Level, Conscience-Based Moral Decisions Stage 1: Respect for power and punishment Motto: “Might makes right” Stage 2: Looking out for #1 Motto: : “What’s in it for me?” Stage 3: Being a “Good Boy” or “Nice Girl” Motto: “I want to be nice” 5. Getting to the Highest Level, Conscience-Based Moral Decisions Stage 4: Law and order thinking Motto: “I’ll do my duty” Stage 5: Justice through democracy Motto: “I’ll live by rules or try to change them” Stage 6: Deciding on basic moral principle by which you will live your life and relate to everyone fairly Motto; “I will subscribe to the Golden Rule or act on my own values” 6. Problems with Kohlberg’s Theory It must be noted, nonetheless, that not all ethicists accept Kohlberg’s theory on moral development. Some argue that his mentioned dilemmas are artificial, that is, they lack ecological validity. In the Hienz dilemma, for instance, Kohlberg’s subjects were aged between 10 and 16, have never been married, and so not credible to answer whether or not Heinz should steal the drug.
