Understanding the Matured Moral Agent: A Reflection on Personal Growth and Ethical Responsibility

ARTICLE 1

As individuals progress through life, they encounter various experiences that shape their moral identity
and maturity as moral agents. The concept of a matured moral agent refers to an individual who has
developed a deep understanding of ethical principles and possesses the capacity to make sound moral
judgments. This process of personal growth and ethical development is essential for navigating complex
moral dilemmas and fulfilling one's responsibilities as a conscientious member of society.

Central to the concept of a matured moral agent is the notion of moral autonomy, which involves the
ability to discern right from wrong based on one's own values and principles. Mature moral agents are
not simply guided by external rules or societal norms, but rather by an internal moral compass that
reflects their personal convictions and beliefs. This autonomy allows individuals to act in accordance
with their own conscience, even when faced with conflicting pressures or temptations.

Another hallmark of a matured moral agent is a strong sense of empathy and compassion towards
others. Mature moral agents are attuned to the needs and concerns of those around them and strive to
act in ways that promote the well-being and dignity of all individuals. This capacity for empathy enables
mature moral agents to cultivate healthy relationships built on trust, respect, and mutual understanding.

In addition to empathy, mature moral agents possess a heightened awareness of the broader social and
ethical implications of their actions. They recognize that their choices have ripple effects that extend
beyond their immediate circumstances and can impact others in profound ways. This awareness prompts
mature moral agents to consider the long-term consequences of their decisions and strive to act in ways
that contribute positively to the well-being of society as a whole.

Personal integrity is another key attribute of a matured moral agent. Integrity entails consistency
between one's values, words, and actions, and a commitment to upholding moral principles even in the
face of adversity or temptation. Mature moral agents strive to live in alignment with their ethical beliefs
and demonstrate authenticity and honesty in their interactions with others.

Furthermore, mature moral agents exhibit a willingness to engage in self-reflection and

introspection as a means of deepening their ethical understanding and honing their moral judgment.
They are open to questioning their own beliefs and assumptions, and seek to cultivate a greater sense of
self-awareness and humility in their moral reasoning. This reflective practice enables mature moral
agents to continuously learn and grow in their moral development, adapting their beliefs and behaviors
in response to new insights and perspectives.

In conclusion, the journey towards becoming a matured moral agent is a lifelong process that requires
continuous self-examination, growth, and ethical reflection. By cultivating qualities such as moral
autonomy, empathy, social awareness, integrity, and self-reflection, individuals can develop the ethical
maturity needed to navigate the complexities of moral decision-making and contribute positively to the
well-being of society. Ultimately, the pursuit of moral development is not only a personal endeavor but
also a collective responsibility that shapes the fabric of our shared ethical community.
 ARTICLE 2: LAWRENCE KOHLBERG AND JEAN PIAGET: MORAL DEVELOPMENT
Jean Piaget introduced the idea of how moral development occurs in stages, each level
built on life experiences and active reasoning. Lawrence Kohlberg furthered this idea by
examining how moral reasoning changes as we grow. How did people determine what was
right or wrong? Following specific patterns of human behaviour, Kohlberg organized the 6
stages into 3 levels of moral reasoning. Participants in his studies, including adults, teenagers,
and children, were asked to offer reasoning to a dilemma. An example that Kohlberg used as a
moral dilemma is presented at the end of every level and stage.

STAGES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT

There were 3 levels of moral reasoning that encompassed the 6 stages. Like Piaget,
subjects were unlikely to regress in their moral development, but instead, moved forward
through the stages: pre-conventional, conventional, and finally post-conventional. Each stage
offers a new perspective, but not everyone functions at the highest level all the time. People
gain a more thorough understanding as they build on their experiences, which makes it
impossible to jump stages of moral development.

Let us start discussing the details of this lesson step by step:

There is a big difference between a young child’s reasoning on the right thing to do and
the manner a morally mature individual arrives at an ethical decision. This necessary growth,
which is a maturation in social reasoning, has been the focus of study of many theorists. One of
them is the American moral psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg who theorized that moral
development happens in six stages, which he divided into three levels.

FIRST LEVEL: PRE-CONVENTIONAL LEVEL.

This level has two stages, first Stage and Second Stage.

The first level is what he called pre-conventional and it corresponds to how infants and
young children think. This pre-conventional level, whose reasoning is centered on the
consequences of one’s actions, is divided into two stages. The first stage of reasoning centers
around obedience and the avoidance of punishment: to a young child’s mind, an action is “good”
if it enables one to escape from punishment; “bad” if it leads to punishment. Later, a child enters
the second stage of reasoning and learns to act according to what she thinks will serve her self-
interest; thus, what is “good” at this age is what the child thinks can bring her pleasure.

Kohlberg used the term pre-conventional to refer to these two stages since at this age, a
young child basically thinks only in terms of the pain (punishment) or pleasure (reward)
brought about as a consequence of her actions. Thus, her concentration is on herself and what
she feels, instead of her society’s conventions on what is right or wrong.

(I hope this table helps.)

FIRST LEVEL: Pre-Conventional First Stage

1. Reasoning centers around Reasoning centers on obedience and
consequences of one’s action. avoidance of punishment
2. A child thinks only about Second Stage
himself/herself, thinks on pain and Reasoning centers on his/her self-interest,
pleasure. on what will bring him/her pleasure.
3. Focuses only on herself/himself and
what she/he feels.

APPLICATION IN AN EXPERIMENT:

What follows below is an example of a problem that presents a dilemma. This is the experiment
conducted by Kolhberg. Here, Kolhberg showed how a person in the First Level and Stage 1 will
act and decide.

This is problem used in the experiment: “A man named Heinz, who lived in Europe, had a wife
whom he loved very much. His wife was diagnosed with a rare type of cancer and did not have
long to live. Luckily, there was a pharmacist who invented a drug called radium that could cure
her. The pharmacist owned all rights to this medication and decided to sell it at a high markup
in order to make a profit. While it cost only $200 to make, he sold it for 10 times that amount
$2000. Heinz did not have enough money to pay the exorbitant price, so he tried fundraising
to cover the costs. With time running out, he had only managed to gather $1000, which was
not enough to buy the medication. Heinz begged the pharmacist to sell it to him at a reduced
price but the man refused. Desperate and running out of time, Heinz broke into the pharmacy
after hours and stole the drug. Was this the right or wrong thing to do? Why?”

To answer the question - Was Heinz action (to steal the drug) right or wrong from the point of
view or from the point of moral reasoning of a person on Level 1 and Stage 1?

To review:

1. The Person is on FIRST LEVEL: Pre-Conventional Morality, and usually, this is a young child
or children under the age of 9. And if the person is on Stage 1, his concern is to be Obedient
and avoid Punishment.

Stage 1 (Pre-Conventional): Obedience and Avoid Punishment Orientation

- Obedience and punishment orientation (How can I avoid punishment?)
- Self-interest orientation (What’s in it for me? Aiming at a reward)
APPLICATION

To answer the question - Was Heinz action (to steal the drug) right or wrong?

The first stage highlights the self-interest of children to our example above, the
man should not steal the medication from the pharmacy as he may go to jail if he is
caught.

Similar to the first stage in Piaget’s theory, Kohlberg reflects on the moral
thought of children. At a young age, they believe that rules are meant to be followed
and those in charge will undoubtedly follow through with punishment. A child’s
reasoning to the above example may include “it’s bad to steal,” or “it’s against the law,”
without assessing the perspective of the man whose wife is sick.

This stage is labeled preconventional due to the limited association that children
have with the outlined principles. They view the ethics taught as something that society
implements, not as something they internalized themselves.

Let us proceed to the First Level Stage 2.

Let us use the same problem and to answer the question - Was Heinz action (to steal the drug)
right or wrong from the point of view or from the point of moral reasoning of a person on Level
1 and Stage 2?

To review:

Stage 2 (Pre-Conventional): Individualism and Exchange

- Interpersonal accord and conformity (Social norms: good boy - good girl attitude)
- Authority and social order maintaining orientation (Law and order morality)

APPLICATION

To answer the question - Was Heinz action (to steal the drug) right or wrong?

This stage (Stage 2) observes how children begin to adopt the views taught, but
also recognize that there is more than one point of view for each matter. Each person
is different and will, therefore, have a unique outlook according to their interests. In
terms of our example above, they may reason that “he may think that it is right to take
the drug, but the pharmacist would not.”

The second stage relies heavily on the exchange of favors and can be
summarized with the common marketing saying “what’s it in for me?” Children at this
stage are not motivated by friendship or respect but by the personal advantage
involved. For example, if a parent asks their child to complete a chore around the house,
 the child may ask what the benefit would be to them. Parents often recognize the “you
scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours”, mindset at this stage and offer a reward, such
as an allowance.

SECOND LEVEL: CONVENTIONAL LEVEL.

This level also has two stages, Third Stage and Fourth Stage.

The second level of moral development is conventional level since this is the age in which
older children, adolescents, and young adults learn to conform to the expectations of society.
This is the time when one learns to follow the conventions of her group. This second level is
divided into two stages: the third and the fourth stages of moral development. The third stage
is when one begins to act according to what the larger group she belongs to expects of her. The
individual here assumes that what will benefit her best is when the other members of her group
approve of her actions. The general tendency at this age is to conform first to the values of one’s
immediate group, such as the family, playmates, or later on, barkada. Older children and
adolescents eventually begin to value the expectations of the larger group they belong to,
whether it be their school, religion, or state. The fourth stage is achieved when a person realizes
that following the dictates of her society is not just good for herself but more importantly, it is
necessary for the existence of society itself. The individual at this stage values most the laws,
rules, and regulations of her society, and thus her moral reasoning is shaped by dutifulness to
the external standards set by society.

In Kohlberg’s reasoning, people who merely follow the rules and regulations of their
institution, the laws of their community or state, the doctrine of their religion - even if they
seem to be the truly right thing to do - are trapped in this second or conventional level, which
is still not yet the highest. The point of Kohlberg’s theory is not to ascertain what defines the
goodness or rightness of the act. Thus, in this sense, Kohlberg’s idea is not an ethical theory.
Instead, it is a psychological theory that attempts to describe the stages of a person’s growth in
moral thinking. The morally mature individual, for Kohlberg, must outgrow both (1) the pre-
conventional level, whose pleasure-and-pain logic locks one into self-centered kind of thinking,
an egoism, as well as (2) the conventional level, which at first glance looks like the sensible
approach to morality. The second level might, de facto, be the way that many (if not most) adults
think about morality, that it is simply a question of following the right rules. The great insight of
Kohlberg, however, is that a truly morally mature individual must outgrow even the simple
following of supposedly right rules. This is where the third level comes in.

(Again, I hope this table helps.)

SECOND LEVEL: Conventional Third Stage

1. Reasoning centers on conforming with 1. Reasoning centers on acting to the
the expectations of society expectations of a bigger group.
2. Reasoning centers on following the 2. Reasoning centers on the belief that
convention of her/his group what is best for her/him is what is
approved by the group.
 3. What is valuable to the person is to
conform first with the values of the group,
like family, friends.
4. Reasoning for older children centers on
conforming to the values of schools,
religion or state.
Fourth Stage
1. Person realizes that following the
dictates of her society is not just good for
herself but more importantly, it is
necessary for the
existence of society itself.
2. The individual at this stage values most
the laws, rules, and regulations of her
society, and thus her moral reasoning is
shaped by dutifulness to the external
standards set by society.

Let us proceed to the Second Level Stage 3.

Let us use the same problem and to answer the question - Was Heinz action (to steal the drug)
right or wrong from the point of view or from the point of moral reasoning of a person on Level
2 and Stage 3?

To review:

Second Level: Conventional Morality

- older children, adolescents, and most adults

Stage 3: Good Interpersonal relationships

APPLICATION

To answer the question - Was Heinz action (to steal the drug) right or wrong?

The stage recognizes the desire to be accepted into societal groups as well as
how each person is affected by the outcome. In terms of our example above, the man
should take the medicine from the pharmacy in order to be a good partner to his wife.

Children in the third stage are typically pre-teens or early teenagers and have
now adopted the societal norms as their own. While they believe that people should
behave appropriately in their communities; they recognize that there is no simple
 solution to moral dilemmas. In Kohlberg’s study per the example above: they accepted
that he should steal the medicine and “he was a good man for wanting to save her.”
They also reasoned that “his intentions were good; that of saving the life of someone
he loves.”

Let us proceed to the Second Level Stage 4.

Let us use the same problem and to answer the question - Was Heinz action (to steal the drug)
right or wrong from the point of view or from the point of moral reasoning of a person on Level
2 and Stage 4?

To review:

Stage 4: Maintaining the Social Order

In this stage, laws and social order reign supreme. Rules and regulations are to
be followed and obeyed. In the above example, the man should not steal the medicine
because it is against the law.

APPLICATION

To answer the question - Was Heinz action (to steal the drug) right or wrong?

Stage 4 shows the moral development of a person as a part of a whole society.

Each person becomes more aware of the impact of everyone’s actions on others and
focuses now on their own role, following the rules, and obeying authorities. While stage
3 highlights the close relationships with family and friends, stage 4 attempts to maintain
social order in the community. Pertaining to the example above, participants in stage
four would argue that while they understood why he wanted to steal the medication,
they could not support the idea of theft. Society cannot maintain order if its members
decided to break the laws when they thought they had a good enough reason to do so.

THIRD LEVEL: POST-CONVENTIONAL LEVEL.

This is the last level and again, it has two stages, fifth Stage and Sixth Stage.

The third and highest level of moral development for Kohlberg is what he calls post-
conventional since the morally responsible agent recognizes that what is good or right is not
reducible to following the rules of one’s group. Instead, it is a question of understanding
personally what one ought to do and deciding, using one’s free will, to act accordingly. This
level, which is also divided into two stages (the fifth and the sixth), represents the individual’s
realization that the ethical principles she has rationally arrived at take precedence over even the
rules or conventions that her society dictates. Moral maturity therefore is seen in an agent who
acts on what she has understood, using her full rationality, to be what is right, regardless of
whether the act will bring the agent pleasure or pain and even regardless of whether the act is
in accordance with one’s community’s laws or not. An agent has attained full moral
development if she acts according to her well-thought-out rational principles.

In the earlier stage of this level of moral development in the fifth stage, the moral agent
sees the value of social contract, namely, agreement that rational agents have arrived at whether
explicitly or implicitly in order to serve what can be considered the common good are what one
ought to honor and follow. This notion of common good is post-conventional in the sense that
the moral agent binds herself to what this theoretical community of rational agents has
identified as morally desirable, whether the agent herself will benefit from doing so or not.
Additionally, this notion of the common good is not reducible to pre-existing communal rules,
traditions, or laws since even these must be weighed using rational discourse. Thus, what is good
or right is what honors the social contract; what contradicts it is bad.

The sixth and the highest stage of moral development that exists even beyond the fifth
stage of the social contract is choosing to perform actions based on universal ethical principles
that one has determined by herself. One realizes that all the conventions (laws, rules, ans
regulations) of society are only correct if they are based on these universal ethical principles;
they must be followed only if they reflect universal ethical principles. This is, for Kohlberg, the
full maturity of post-conventional thinking since this stage recognizes that in the end, the
question of what one ought to do goes back to the individual moral agent and her own
rationality. Kohlberg’s insight is that, ultimately, one must think for herself what she ought to do.
This stand recognizes the supposed fact that there might be instances when the agent must
choose to go against what the community of rational thinkers deems as good if she really thinks
she must, assuming that she has committed her full rationality in arriving at that decision.

One does not have to agree completely with Kohlberg’s theory of moral development to
see its overall value. This theory helps, at the very least, point out the differences in moral
reasoning: the more mature kind is seen in people who are not anymore dictated by the logic
of reward and punishment, or pain and pleasure. Simply following rules even if, theoretically,
they are the correct ones, does not necessarily qualify as morally mature behavior. One must
make free use of her own power of reasoning in cases of moral choice and not remain a
creature of blind obedience to either pain or pleasure or to the demands of the group, if one
aspires to moral maturity.

The significance of studying the different ethical theories and frameworks becomes clear
to individual who has achieved, or is in the process of achieving, moral maturity. For someone
who is still in Kohlberg’s pre-conventional or conventional stages, moral valuations / judgment /
decisions remain a matter of seeking reward or avoiding punishment, or at best, a question of
following the dictates of other people.

For one who is well on the way to moral maturity, the task of using one’s reason to
understand moral issues becomes a real possibility and an authentic responsibility. Part of this
maturity is also the realization that ethical thinking is not a completely intellectual task, but
one that also involves the feelings.
THIRD LEVEL: Post-Conventional Fifth Stage
1. The morally responsible agent 1. The moral agent sees the value of social
recognizes that what is good or right is not contract, namely, agreement that rational
reducible to following the rules of one’s agents have arrived at whether explicitly or
group. implicitly in order to serve what can be
2. Instead, it is a question of considered the common good are what one
understanding personally what one ought ought to honor and follow.
to do and deciding, using one’s free will, to 2. This notion of common good is post-
act accordingly. 3. This level represents the conventional in the sense that the moral
individual’s realization that the ethical agent binds herself to what this
principles she has rationally arrived at take theoretical community of rational agents
precedence over even the rules or has identified as morally desirable,
conventions that her society dictates. whether the agent herself will benefit
4.Moral maturity therefore is seen in an from doing so or not.
agent who acts on what she has 3.Additionally, this notion of the common
understood, using her full rationality, to be good is not reducible to pre-existing
what is right, regardless of whether the act communal rules, traditions, or laws since
will bring the agent pleasure or pain and even these must be weighed using rational
even regardless of whether the act is in discourse.
accordance with one’s community’s laws 4.Thus, what is good or right is what
or not. honors the social contract; what
5.An agent has attained full moral contradicts it is bad.
development if she acts according to her
well-thought-out rational principles. Sixth Stage
1.The sixth and the highest stage of moral
development that exists even beyond the
fifth stage of the social contract is choosing
to perform actions based on universal
ethical principles that one has determined
by herself.
2.One realizes that all the conventions
(laws, rules, and regulations) of society are
only correct if they are based on these
universal ethical principles; they must be
followed only if they reflect universal
ethical principles.
3.This is, for Kohlberg, the full maturity of
post-conventional thinking since this stage
recognizes that in the end, the question of
what one ought to do goes back to the
individual moral agent and her own
rationality.
 4.Kohlberg’s insight is that, ultimately, one
must think for herself what she ought to do.
This stand recognizes the supposed fact
that there might be instances when the
agent must choose to go against what the
community of rational thinkers deems as
good if she really thinks she must, assuming
that she has committed her full rationality
in arriving at that decision.

Let us proceed to the Third Level Stage 5.

Post-conventional morality
- rare with adolescents and few adults

To review:

Level 3: (Post-Conventional)
- Social contract orientation (Justice and the spirit of the law)
- Universal ethical principles (Principle conscience)

APPLICATION

Let us use the same problem and to answer the question - Was Heinz action (to steal the drug)
right or wrong from the point of view or from the point of moral reasoning of a person on Level
3 and Stage 5?

Stage 5: Social Contract and Individual Rights

This stage acknowledges the introduction of abstract reasoning as people

attempt to explain specific behaviors. In our example above, the man should steal the
medication for his wife because she is deathly ill and the laws do not take the
circumstances into account.

In the 5th stage, members begin to consider “What makes for a good society?”
They are able to step back and assess each situation as a whole, reflecting on what is
good and just. Reflecting on the morals and ethics of their current of their current
community allows them to address inconsistencies in their values and attempt to fix
what they do not agree with. A society that runs smoothly does not necessarily uphold
their desired principles. This is one step ahead of stage 4, where the main goal is to keep
a society functioning at all costs.
Let us proceed to the Third Level Stage 6.

Stage 6: Universal Principles

APPLICATION

Let us use the same problem and to answer the question - Was Heinz action (to steal the drug)
right or wrong from the point of view or from the point of moral reasoning of a person on Level
3 and Stage 6?

The final stage of Kohlberg’s theory states that moral reasoning is based on
personal values. In the above PROBLEM, it is okay for the man to take the medication
without paying as objects or property are not as valuable as his wife’s life.
Stage 6 was developed when Kohlberg discovered that elected processes do
not always result in fair outcomes. Individuals at the 5th stage of moral reasoning
recognized the importance of protecting human rights while also resolving
challenges in a democratic way. Unfortunately, some majority votes resulted in
regulations that actually hurt a minority group leading to questions of an even higher
level of reasoning.
The 6th stage was created to acknowledge the use of justice in moral reasoning.
General universal morals and ethics are used as a baseline for what is right and just.
These are often abstract concepts that cannot be clearly defined, only outlined. Equality,
justice, dignity, and respect are all ideas that from the basis of universal principles, Laws
and rules are only effective if they support the universal principles, which each person
at this stage works to uphold.
Similarly, they work on disobeying laws that are unfair and feels guilty if they
don’t obey the laws that they believe in: individuals at this level of reasoning behaved
in a certain way because it was the right thing to do, and were not motivated by laws or
societal expectations. Kohlberg found it challenging to identify participants in his studies
who could consistently display moral reasoning in the sixth stage.

SUMMARY:
There are two (2) summaries included. I would help you a lot if you read both
Summary One:
In the 1st stage, children obey the rules and believe what society says is right. Avoiding
punishment is a leading factor in their desire to obey authority. This has diminished by
stage 2, where children can see that they (there) are multiple points of view to the matter in
question. They tend to reason according their own self-interest, including bartering with others.
In stage 3, people value a supportive community and therefore have the desire to be a
good helpful member. This changes as they move into stage four where they seek instead to
meet the goals of the society, which includes maintaining law and order. Throughout
both stages, we see how young teens value the morals and ethics of the group of which
they are part.
In stage 5, people evolve from the idea of being good into what would be the right thing
to do. They seek to create morals and values for a good society instead of maintaining the
society for the sake of doing so. They take these ideas one step further in stage 6, where they
work to incorporate justice and creating a fair society for all.

SUMMARY Two:

1. In Kohlberg’s reasoning, people who merely follow the rules and regulations of their
institution, the laws of their community or state, the doctrine of their religion - even if they
seem to be the truly right thing to do - are trapped in this second conventional level, which is
still not yet the highest. The point of Kohlberg’s theory is not to ascertain what defines the
goodness or rightness of the act. Thus, in this sense, Kohlberg’s idea is not an ethical theory.

Instead, it is a psychological theory that attempts to describe the stages of a person’s

growth in moral thinking. The morally mature individual, for Kohlberg, must outgrow both (1)
the pre-conventional level, whose pleasure-and-pain logic locks one into self-centered kind of
thinking, an egoism, as well as (2) the conventional level, which at first glance looks like the
sensible approach to morality. The second level might, de facto, be the way that many (if not
most) adults think about morality, that it is simply a question of following the right rules. The
great insight of Kohlberg, however, is that a truly morally mature individual must outgrow even
the simple following of supposedly right rules. This is where the third level comes in.

2. One does not have to agree completely with Kohlberg’s theory of moral development to see
its overall value. This theory helps, at the very least, point out the differences in moral reasoning:
the more mature kind is seen in people who are not anymore dictated by the logic of reward
and punishment, or pain and pleasure. Simply following rules even if, theoretically, they are
the correct ones, does not necessarily qualify as morally mature behavior. One must make free
use of her own power of reasoning in cases of moral choice and not remain a creature of blind
obedience to either pain or pleasure or to the demands of the group, if one aspires to moral
maturity.

The significance of studying the different ethical theories and frameworks becomes clear
to individual who has achieved, or is in the process of achieving, moral maturity. For someone
who is still in Kohlberg’s pre-conventional or conventional stages, moral valuations / judgment /
decisions remain a matter of seeking reward or avoiding punishment, or at best, a question of
following the dictates of other people. For one who is well on the way to moral maturity, the
task of using one’s reason to understand moral issues becomes a real possibility and an
authentic responsibility. Part of this maturity is also the realization that ethical thinking is not
a completely intellectual task, but one that also involves the feelings.

ARTICLE 3

RAMON CASTILLO REYES’ WHO ONE IS

A. WHO ONE IS

The individual human is tasked to think about what is “right” and why it is so, and to choose to do so.
Who is that individual? Who one is, in the most fundamental sense, is another major topic in the act of
philosophizing. Who one is is the Filipino answer of Filipino Philosopher Ramon Castillo Reyes to the
famous Greek famous saying “Epimeleia he auto” famously translated into English as “Know thyself”.
Philosopher Reyes explained that said Who one is is a cross-point.

B. CROSS-POINTS

By this he means that one’s identity, who is or who I am, is a product of many forces and events that
happened outside of one’s choosing. Philosopher Reyes identifies four (4) cross-points:

1. The physical,

2. The interpersonal,

3. The social, and

4. The historical

Who one is, firstly, is the function of the physical events in the past and material factors in the present
that one did not have the choice in. You are a member of the species Homo sapiens and therefore
possess the capacities and limitations endemic to human beings everywhere. You inherited the genetic
material of both your biological parents. Your body has been shaped and continues to be conditioned by
the given set of environmental factors that are specific to your corner of the globe. All of these are
given; they have happened or are still happening whether you want to or not. You did not choose to be a
human being, nor to have this particular set of biological parents, nor to be born in and/or grow up in
such a physical environment (I.e., for Filipinos to be born in an archipelago with a tropical climate near
the equator along the Pacific Ring of Fire, with specific set of flora and fauna, which shape human life in
this country to a profound degree).

The person is a product of interpersonal cross-point of many events and factors outside of one’s
choosing. One did not choose her own parents, and yet her personality, character traits, and her overall
way of doing things and thinking about things have all been shaped by her parents and how they
brought her up. All of these are also affected by nthe people surrounding her: siblings, relatives,
classmates, playmates, and eventually workmates. Thus, who one is - in the sense of one’s character or
personality - has been shaped by one’s relationships as well as the physical factors that affect how one
thinks and feels. Even Jose Rizal once argued what Europeans mistook as Filipinos “laziness” was actually
a function of the tropical climate and natural abundance in the archipelago. Filipinos supposedly did not
need to exert effort themselves as much as Europeans in their cold climate and barren lands were forced
to do.

SOME THOUGHTS:

1. Reflect on above’s statement about Filipinos’ “laziness”: How about the OFW? What do foreign
employers say about them? Is Jose Rizal wrong?

2. Re-read the last two sentences of the paragraph above and contemplate.

3. Answer the questions: a) What explains the OFW phenomenon?

The third cross-point for Philosopher Reyes is the societal “who you is” is shaped by one’s society. The
term “society” here pertains to all the elements of the human group - as opposed to the natural
environment - that one is a member of. “Culture” in its varied aspects is included here. Reyes argues that
“who one is” is molded in large part by the kind of society and culture - which, for the most part, one did
not choose - that one belongs to. Filipinos have their own way of doing things (e.g., pagmamano), their
own system of beliefs and values (e.g., closely-knit family ties, etc.), and even their own notions of right
and wrong (e.g., a communal vs an individualistic notion of rights). This third cross-point interacts with
the physical and interpersonal factors that the individual and her people are immersed into or engaged
in.

The fourth cross-point Reyes names is the historical, which is simply the events that one’s people has
undergone. In short, one’s people’s history shapes “who one is” right now. For example, the Philippines
had a long history of colonization that affected how Philippine society has been formed and how
Philippine culture has developed. This effect, in turn, shapes the person who is a member of Philippine
society. A major part of Philippine history is the Christianization of the islands during the Spanish
conquest. Christianity, for good or bad, has formed Philippine society and culture, and most probably the
individual Filipino, whether she may be Christian herself or not. The historical cross-point also interacts
with the previous three (physical, interpersonal, and societal). Each cross-point thus crosses over into the
others as well.

C. PROJECT FOR ONE’S SELF

However, being a product of these cross-points is just one side of “Who you is”. According to Reyes,
“who you is” is also a project for one’s self. This happens because man has freedom. This freedom is not
absolute: one does not become something because one chooses to be. Even if one wants to fly, he
cannot, unless she finds a way to invent a device that can help her do so. This finite freedom means that
one has the capacity to give herself a particular direction in life according to her own ideal self. Thus, for
Reyes, “Who you is” is a cross-point, but in an an existential level, he argues that the meaning of one’s
existence is in the intersection between the fact that one’s being is a product of many forces outside her
choosing and her ideal future for herself. We can see that ethics plays a big role in this existential
challenge of forming one’s self. What one ought to do in one’s life is not dictated by one’s physical,
interpersonal, societal, or historical conditions. What one ought to do is also not abstracted from one’s
specific situation.One always comes from somewhere. One is always continuously being shaped by many
factors outside of one’s own free will. The human individual thus always exists in the tension between
being conditioned by external factors and being a free agent. The human individual never exists in a
vacuum as if she were a pure rational entity without any embodiment and historicity. The moral / ethical
agent is not a calculating, unfeeling machine that produces completely objective and absolute correct
solutions to even the most complex moral / ethical problems.

How the article Understanding the Matured Moral Agent: A Reflection on Personal Growth and Ethical
Responsibility related to : LAWRENCE KOHLBERG AND JEAN PIAGET: MORAL DEVELOPMENT and
RAMON CASTILLO REYES’ WHO ONE IS