The Moral Agent and The Development of Moral Character 3

202
General Ethics 1
The Moral Agent and the Development of Moral Character

Source: Ferdinand Mangibin, “The Moral Agent: Moral Character Development and Its Stages,”
General Ethics: An Introduction (Bulacan, Philippines: Subverso Publishing House, 2018), 53-71.
I. The Moral Agent and the External Influence

Everything we do in life requires certain decisions to make. For some, making the
“right” choice is not a big deal but for others a lack of clarity about what is “right” might seems
to be the cause for not making decisions. But how do we actually determine what is right? What
will be the basis for making a decision and believing that it’s the right way? It is for this reason
that our session is about the development of moral character. Every perspective of what is right
is actually based on one’s own moral character that we acquired, nurtured, cultivated since our
young age until we become member of society: We are formed in social communities and that our
ways of seeing the world are profoundly shaped by the shared images and constructions of our group or
class (Fowler, 1981, 91). Values, beliefs, customs and behaviors are learned and shared with a
particular group of interacting persons with particular culture and ways of thinking (Leininger,
1984; Tripp-Reimer, 1987). This makes moral values to be culturally relative (Gostin, 1995). This
implies that a value such as freedom or autonomy and self-determination may be regarded
highly in a culture that prizes independence and individualism. But the same values may be
regarded as contrary to the custom in a society where persons are demarcated by their relation
to others. Thus, moral character is a product of the socio-cultural environment in which one
lives and develops. One’s knowledge of what is right and wrong is shaped by the very
community where one was born.
However, “It is a question whether a character is a good one. It is another to what extent it is
one's own”, as Flanagan and Rorty (1990: 96) claim. This means that moral character is
something that springs from the will of the moral agent. It is not something that is imposed
from the outside but, rather, it develops as individual grows into maturity. The individual is
responsible for his/her character as he/she is active in a certain way in the shaping of it
(Flanagan and Rorty, 1990: 97). Hence, though the family and the community contribute in
shaping the character traits of the person but it is always the call of the individual human agent
in its construction. But how do individuals develop his/her moral character? It is for this reason
that Lawrence Kohlberg and Carol Gilligan’s Stages of Moral Development becomes relevant.
II. Lawrence Kohlberg and Carol Gilligan’s Theory

a. Lawrence Kohlberg
Lawrence Kohlberg was a professor at Harvard University. He began as a
developmental psychologist and then moved to the field of education. He was particularly well-
1 AACR | GE 8 Philosophy Department / College of Arts and Sciences – Silliman University

202
General Ethics 1
known for his theory of moral development which he popularized through research studies at
Harvard’s Center for Moral Education. “Kohlberg interviewed seventy-two lower-and-middle-
class white boys, presenting each with a moral dilemma: whether it would be permissible for a
poor man to steal medicine for his dying wife. The children’s responses became basis of his six-
stage theory of moral development” (Doorey, 2012).
LAWRENCE KOHLBERG CAROL GILLIGAN

LEVEL STAGE SOCIAL ORIENTATION SOCIAL ORIENTATION
Pre-conventional Stage 1 Punishment Orientation
(Self-focused) Obedience to Authority Concern for Survival
Stage 2 Pleasure Orientation What’s best for the Self
“What’s in it for me?”
Conventional Stage 3 Peer and Group Approval Goodness to Others
(Group-focused) Stage 4 Legalistic Orientation What’s best for the Others
Duty towards Society
Post-conventional Stage 5 Common Good
(Universal focused) Law as servant of Rights Ethics of Care
Stage 6 Universal Principles Interdependence
Personal Conscience
In the Pre-conventional level (self-focused), individual judges morality strictly on the

basis of consequences - fear of being punished for bad actions, reward for good actions. The
behavior is bounded by threat and rewards. The first stage (punishment orientation) expects the
child to behave according to socially acceptable rules or norms because they are told to do so by
some authority figure like their parents, teachers, pastors or clergy and elders in the
community: “Shouting in the Church is not allowed! or Saying bad words is not good! or Wearing that
dress is not proper!” The child obeys the rule for fear of punishment. In the second stage (pleasure
orientation), on the other hand, individual behaves in the right way because by doing it one
receives rewards. Decisions are made based on the benefits that one can receive in doing an
action by following rules.
In the Conventional level (group focused) the focus is more societal relationship,
especially, on social conformity (Burkhardt and Nathaniel, 2002). The individuals are most
concerned about the opinions of their peers and that their “good” behavior lies what will please
the others. The third stage (peer and group approval) is characterized by a behavior which seeks to
do what will gain the approval of peers. The reactions of the others are somehow the basis for
one’s behavior and the decision to act. Living up to other’s expectation becomes a day-to-day
norm and the basis for making moral decisions. Stage four (legalistic orientation) is oriented by
obedience to the rule or law as one’s duty, that is, “We conform to laws and to those in authority
because of duty, both out of respect for them and in order to avoid censure” (Burkhardt and Nathaniel,

202
General Ethics 1
2002). There is a higher value in obeying the law than by simply seeking the approval of one's
peers. By the time individuals reach adulthood, they consider society when making moral
judgments following rules, doing one’s duty, and respecting authority to ensure one’s
harmonious relationship with others.
In the post-conventional level (universal focused), the focus is on the universal moral
principles. And this is the most challenging level as Morality is judged in terms of abstract
principles and not by existing rules that govern society. Moral and ethical choices rise above the laws of
society, and individual look within themselves for the answers rather than basing moral decisions on
external sources of authority. Many people, however, according to Kohlberg, never enter into this
level of moral development.
The stage five (common good) is anchored on the understanding of social mutuality and
genuine interest in the welfare of others. There is a clear concern towards human rights than
simply following the law. The law is accepted or approved as long as it protects the common
good of the people and the inherent natural right of every individual. Law serves as the
protector of individual rights and not the other way around. The stage six (universal principles) is
grounded on respect for universal principle and the demands of individual conscience. When
faced with a dilemma between law and conscience, a person’s conscience is followed. Behavior
is directed by self-chosen ethical principles that place high value on justice, dignity and
equality” of individuals (“Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development”). It is a stage where
conscience is applied giving value to the dignity of persons.
b. 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.
She was influenced both by Erik Erikson and Lawrence Kohlberg (Ball, 2010). “In contrast to the
justice ethic described by Kohlberg, in which personal liberty and rights are prime, Gilligan
noted that women utilize an ethic of caring, in which the moral imperative is grounded in
relationship with and responsibility for one another” (Burkhardt and Nathaniel, 2002, 84). In
other words, while Kohlberg’s work on men is from the perspective of justice, Gilligan works
on women from the perspective of care.
Kohlberg’s pre-conventional stage is for Gilligan concern for survival giving emphasis
on “What’s the best for the self” which certain element of selfishness and dependence on others
(Gilligan, 1982, 74). The self is given priority and that anything that can benefit the self is
valued. This is based on the principle that “one must first be able to care responsibly for
oneself” before the others (Gilligan, 1982, 76). But as the individual grows to maturity, he/she
realizes that there are others in which one has to relate to form a community. In this moment,
the transition happens when the self begins to see the others as significant as one gets benefit

202
General Ethics 1
from relating with them as “Citizens” (Gilligan, 1982, 79). With Kohlberg’s Conventional level,
Gilligan considers it goodness to others in which the needs of others are put ahead of the self:
“The moral person is one who helps others; and take responsibility of other’s needs” even at the
extent that one makes self-sacrifice (Gilligan, 1982, 66). This phase shows individual making
moral decisions for the sake of others. And lastly, Kohlberg’s post-conventional stage is the
Ethics of Care for Gilligan in which the self sees it connectedness and equality with others
including a clear imperative to harm no one. One takes responsibility for choices in which
projected consequences and personal intention are the motivation for actions, rather than
concern for the reactions of others (Gilligan, 1982, 67). This phase focuses on the dynamics of
relationships through a new understanding of the interconnection between other and self. Care
becomes the self-chosen principle of a judgment that remains psychological in its concern with
relationships and response but becomes universal in its condemnation of exploitation and hurt:
“The ideal of care is thus an activity of relationship, of seeing and responding to need, taking
care of the world by sustaining the web of connection so that no one is left alone” (Gilligan,
1982, 62). An individual cannot live isolated from the others for the self cannot sustain itself
without the others. Concern for others is just as equal to the concern of the self as the “self and
other are interdependent” (Gilligan, 1982, 74).
Conclusion:
Both Kohlberg and Gilligan’s theory suggest that moral development is not an overnight course
but a life-long process. It is something that a moral agent should work on so that one’s moral
character would grow and mature in wisdom to expand one’s moral horizon from the self-
serving act to a conscience-based act, in Kohlberg, as well as from thinking what’s best for
oneself to an ethics of care for Gilligan. Both of their theories are helpful for us to realize the
level of our moral character and in a way give us idea where we should grow more as moral
agent.

The Moral Agent and The Development of Moral Character 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Moral Agent and The Development of Moral Character 3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Moral Agent and The Development of Moral Character 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

202

The Moral Agent and the Development of Moral Character

I. The Moral Agent and the External Influence

II. Lawrence Kohlberg and Carol Gilligan’s Theory

1 AACR | GE 8 Philosophy Department / College of Arts and Sciences – Silliman University

LAWRENCE KOHLBERG CAROL GILLIGAN

In the Pre-conventional level (self-focused), individual judges morality strictly on the

2 AACR | GE 8 Philosophy Department / College of Arts and Sciences – Silliman University

3 AACR | GE 8 Philosophy Department / College of Arts and Sciences – Silliman University

4 AACR | GE 8 Philosophy Department / College of Arts and Sciences – Silliman University

You might also like