PART 2: THE MORAL AGENT
Lesson 7- Filipino Moral Behavior: Palusot > Lesson 8 – Developing Character > Lesson 9 – Moral
Development > Lesson 10 – Moral Decision Making > Lesson 11 – Moral Courage
▪ Trace their own moral development
▪ Discuss the importance of understanding one’s level and stage of moral development
▪ Apply the concept of moral development to examine moral judgments
▪ Discuss how moral development affect one’s moral choices and actions
(to be decided by the instructor)
In this lesson, we will explore the different theories of moral development and how they affect our
moral judgments and actions.
▪ Developmental stages refer to the distinct phases of growth and maturation that
individuals go through from conception to adulthood and beyond. The goal of studying
developmental stages is to understand people — how they develop, grow, and change
throughout their lives.
▪ Moral development is the process by which individuals learn to distinguish between right
and wrong, develop moral reasoning, and internalize societal values and norms, ultimately
guiding their behavior and decision-making in social contexts.
▪ Key theories of moral development include
1. Jean Piaget’s Theory of Moral Development
2. Lawrence Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development
3. Carol Gilligan’s Theory of Moral Development
▪ Jean William Piaget (1896-1980) was a Swiss psychologist known for his work on child
development. He was the first to make a systematic study on the acquisition of
understanding in children.
▪ Piaget (1932) was principally interested not in what children do (i.e., in whether they
break the rules or not) but in what they think. In other words, he was interested in
children’s moral reasoning.
▪ Piaget conceptualizes moral development as a constructivist process, whereby the
interplay of action and thought builds moral concepts. He found that children’s ideas
regarding rules, moral judgments, and punishment tended to change as they got older.
▪ Piaget suggested two main types of moral thinking:
1. Heteronomous morality: rules as unchangeable and imposed by authorities
(moral realism)
2. Autonomous morality: rules are created by people and can be negotiated (moral
relativism)
▪ Heteronomous Morality (5-9 years)
1. Children regard morality as obeying other people’s rules and laws, which cannot
be changed. Morality is based on other people’s rules.
2. They accept that all rules are made by some authority figure (e.g. parents,
teacher, God), and that breaking the rules will lead to immediate and severe
punishment (immanent justice).
3. The function of any punishment is to make the guilty suffer in that the severity
of the punishment should be related to severity of wrong-doing (expiatory
punishment).
4. During this stage, children consider rules as being absolute and unchanging,
i.e. “divine-like”. They think that rules cannot be changed and have always been
the same as they are now.
5. Behavior is judged as “bad” in terms of the observable consequences,
regardless of the intentions or reasons for that behavior. Therefore, a large amount
of accidental damage is viewed as worse than a small amount of deliberate
damage.
Example
Two children, Alex and Jamie, are helping their mom in the kitchen. Alex
accidentally knocks over a tray of 10 cups while trying to carry too many at once.
The cups shatter on the floor. Jamie gets angry later and intentionally throws 1
cup on the floor, breaking it.
Heteronomous Morality Perspective: A child in the heteronomous morality stage
would judge the actions based on the consequences rather than the intentions.
They believe rules are fixed and unchangeable, and breaking them is always wrong,
regardless of the reason.
Judgment: The child would say that Alex did something worse than Jamie because
Alex broke 10 cups, while Jamie only broke 1.
Reasoning: The child focuses on the outcome (more cups broken = worse behavior)
and doesn't consider that Alex's action was accidental, while Jamie's was
intentional.
Child's Response: "Alex is naughtier because he broke more cups. It doesn’t matter
that he didn’t mean to—he still broke the rule and made a big mess!"
▪ Autonomous Morality (9-10 years)
1. Morality is based on your own rules. Children recognize there is no absolute
right or wrong and that morality depends on intentions not consequences.
2. Children have developed the ability to see moral rules from other people’s
perspectives. As a result, children’s ideas on the nature of rules themselves, on
moral responsibility, punishment and justice, all change, and their thinking
becomes more like that of adults.
3. Children now understand that rules do not come from some mystical “divine-
like” source. People make rules and people can change them – they are not
inscribed on tablets of stone.
4. Older children recognize that rules are needed to prevent quarreling and to
ensure fair play. They also recognize that rules can be changed if circumstances
dictate and if everybody agrees.
5. With regard to issues of blame and moral responsibility older children don’t just
take the consequences into account they also consider motives. Children begin to
realize that if they behave in ways that appear to be wrong, but have good
intentions, they are not necessarily going to be punished.
6. Thus, for them a well-intentioned act that turned out badly is less blameworthy
than a malicious act that did no harm.
Example
Two children, Mia and Noah, are playing soccer in the schoolyard. Mia accidentally
trips and knocks over a flowerpot while chasing the ball. The flowerpot breaks.
Noah gets frustrated with the game and intentionally kicks another flowerpot,
breaking it.
Autonomous Morality Perspective: A child in the autonomous morality stage
would judge the actions based on the intentions behind them, not just the
consequences. They understand that rules can be flexible and that context matters.
Judgment: The child would say that Noah did something worse than Mia because
Noah broke the flowerpot on purpose, while Mia's action was an accident.
Reasoning: The child considers the intentions behind the actions and recognizes
that Mia didn’t mean to break the flowerpot, even though the outcome was the
same.
Child's Response: "Noah is more wrong because he broke the flowerpot on
purpose. Mia didn’t mean to do it—she was just playing and didn’t want to break
anything. It’s not fair to blame her as much as Noah."
▪ Lawrence Kohlberg (1927-1987) was an American psychologist best known for his theory
of stages of moral development. He extended Jean Piaget’s account of children’s moral
development from 25 years earlier. According to Kohlberg, individuals progress through
six distinct stages of moral reasoning from childhood to adulthood.
▪ Levels and Stages in Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development
1. Level 1: Pre-Conventional Morality (0 to 9 years)
At this level, children don’t have their own personal sense of right and wrong yet. Moral
authority comes from outside the individual. Children accept the moral standards of
authority figures such as parents and teachers.
Children are motivated by avoiding punishments and obtaining rewards. Moral decisions
are based primarily on the physical consequences of actions:
If an action leads to punishment, they view it as bad.
If an action leads to rewards, they view it as good.
Stage 1. Obedience and Punishment Orientation. Moral decisions are driven by
the desire to avoid punishment. Individuals perceive rules as fixed and absolute,
without considering intent. Right and wrong are determined by direct
consequences, especially punishment.
Example
A young child named Sam is told by his mother not to eat cookies before dinner.
However, Sam really wants a cookie and sneaks one from the jar when his mother
isn't looking. Sam might think, "If I eat the cookie, Mom might catch me and
punish me. I don't want to get in trouble, so I shouldn't eat it." Alternatively, if Sam
decides to eat the cookie, he might think, "I hope Mom doesn't find out, because I
don't want to be punished."
Stage 2. Self-Interest Orientation. Individuals recognize varying viewpoints but
base decisions primarily on self-interest. Actions are judged right if they serve
personal needs or involve equal exchange (“what’s in it for me?”). Reciprocity is
transactional, not moral.
Example
A child named Lily is playing with her friend Mia. Mia has a toy that Lily wants to
play with, but Mia doesn’t want to share it. Lily might think, "If I let Mia play with
my favorite doll, maybe she’ll let me play with her toy. It’s fair because we both get
something we want." Alternatively, Lily might decide not to share her doll because
she thinks, "Why should I share if Mia isn’t sharing with me? It’s not fair for me to
give something and get nothing in return."
2. Level 2: Conventional Morality (Early adolescence to adulthood)
This level is the adolescent phase of moral development focused on societal norms and
external expectations to discern right from wrong, often grounded in tradition, cultural
practices, or established codes of conduct.
At this level, most adolescents and adults internalize the moral standards of valued adult
role models. Authority is internalized but not questioned, and reasoning is based on the
norms of the group to which the person belongs.
Children at this stage believe that social rules and the expectations of others determine
what is acceptable or unacceptable behavior. A social system that stresses the
responsibilities of relationships and social order is seen as desirable and must, therefore,
influence our views of right and wrong.
People who follow conventional morality believe that it’s important to follow society’s rules
and expectations to maintain order and prevent problems.
Stage 3. Good Interpersonal Relationships. Morality is guided by social
approval and maintaining relationships. Individuals aim to be seen as “good” by
others, emphasizing trust, loyalty, and conformity to social roles and expectations.
Actions reflect the desire to please others.
Example
Jake is at school and sees a classmate, Alex, being bullied by a group of students.
Jake knows that standing up for Alex might make him a target, but he also wants
to be seen as a kind and caring person. Jake might think, "If I don’t help Alex, my
friends might think I’m selfish or cowardly. I want them to see me as a good person
who stands up for others." Alternatively, Jake might consider, "Alex is a nice
person, and it’s not fair that they’re being treated this way. I would want someone
to help me if I were in their situation."
Stage 4. Authority and Maintaining Social Order. Individuals prioritize law,
order, and societal stability. Moral decisions uphold laws and authority, viewing
societal rules as critical for collective well-being. Maintaining social order and
fulfilling obligations is paramount.
Example
A college student named Emma is taking a final exam. She notices that her friend,
Sarah, is cheating by looking at notes hidden under her desk. Emma knows that
cheating is against the school rules and could result in serious consequences for
Sarah. Emma might think, "Cheating is against the rules, and if everyone cheated,
it wouldn’t be fair to those who studied hard. The school has these rules to make
sure everyone is treated equally and to maintain fairness." Alternatively, Emma
might consider reporting Sarah, thinking, "If I don’t say anything, it could
encourage more cheating, and that would harm the integrity of the school. It’s my
responsibility to help uphold the rules."
3. Level 3: Post-Conventional Morality (Some adults; rare)
At this level, what is considered morally right is based on an individual’s understanding of
universal ethical principles, not merely social norms or authority. Individuals at the
postconventional level make moral decisions based on what they personally believe is
right, rather than simply following the rules established by society. They develop their own
ethical principles and values, independent of what others or society dictates.
At this level, moral reasoning centers on abstract concepts such as fairness, justice, and
fundamental human values. People consider how their choices might affect others and
strive to make decisions that benefit everyone, not just themselves. Individual judgment is
based on self-chosen principles, with a focus on individual rights and justice.
The values that guide postconventional morality are often abstract and include concepts
like the preservation of life and the importance of human dignity. According to Kohlberg,
only 10-15% of people reach this advanced level of moral reasoning, as it requires the
capacity for abstract thinking necessary for stages 5 or 6 (postconventional morality).
Stage 5. Social Contract and Individual Rights. The child/individual becomes
aware that while rules/laws might exist for the good of the greatest number, there
are times when they will work against the interest of particular individuals. The
issues are not always clear-cut.
Example
A community is debating whether to build a new highway that would cut through
a historic neighborhood. The highway would benefit the majority by reducing
traffic congestion and boosting the economy, but it would also displace families
and destroy a culturally significant area.
A person at this stage might argue that while the highway could benefit many
people, the rights of the individuals in the neighborhood and the cultural value of
the area must also be considered. They might propose a compromise, such as
rerouting the highway to minimize harm or providing fair compensation and
relocation assistance to the affected families. They would emphasize the
importance of a democratic process where all stakeholders have a voice in the
decision-making process.
Stage 6. Universal Principles. People at this stage have developed their own set
of moral guidelines, which may or may not fit the law. The principles apply to
everyone. E.g., human rights, justice, and equality. The person will be prepared to
act to defend these principles even if it means going against the rest of society in
the process and having to pay the consequences of disapproval and or
imprisonment. Kohlberg doubted few people had reached this stage.
Example
A country is under a dictatorship that enforces unjust laws, such as imprisoning
individuals for speaking out against the government. A person in this society
knows someone who has been unjustly arrested for protesting peacefully.
A person at this stage would believe that every individual has an inherent right to
freedom of speech and dignity, regardless of the law. They might choose to help
the imprisoned person escape or publicly protest the injustice, even if it means
breaking the law and risking their own safety. Their decision is based on the
universal principle that all humans deserve equal rights and that standing up
against oppression is a moral duty.
▪ Carol Gilligan (1936) is an American feminist, ethicist, and psychologist, best known for
her work on ethical community and ethical relationships. She was a professor of
Humanities and Applied Psychology. She is known for her book In a Different Voice (1982),
which criticized Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development.
▪ Gilligan's Argument Against Kohlberg's Theory
1. Kohlberg suggested most people wouldn't reach the highest stages of his scale. Instead,
they would stop developing morally in the middle stages at the conventional level.
2. Kohlberg’s study showed that girls scored predominantly at stage 3, which is concerned
with being a good person in order to maintain the goodwill and approval of others, while
most boys scored at Stage 4, which is focused on adhering to the norms and laws of society.
3. This made it seem like men reached higher levels of morality than women, but Carol
Gilligan noted that Kohlberg's theory was formulated exclusively through research with
young white males. As a result, she suggested that Kohlberg's theory is biased toward men
and boys and doesn't account for women's and girls' perspectives on morality.
4. Men, she said, prioritize an "ethics of justice." In this approach, morality is centered on
abstract principles and rules that can be applied equally to everyone. Meanwhile, women
prioritize an "ethics of care" where morality is centered on interpersonal relationships,
and moral judgment is based on the context of an issue.
▪ Stages in Gilligan's Theory of Moral Development
1. Preconventional Morality
Moral judgment is entirely focused on the self and the need to survive. When a conflict
arises between the needs of the self and the needs of others, a woman will choose to
address her own needs.
Example
Sarah, a young woman in her early 20s, is balancing her career and personal life. In her
early teens, she was primarily focused on her own goals and desires, often prioritizing
herself over others. However, as she matures, she begins to take on more responsibilities,
such as caring for her aging grandmother and mentoring a younger colleague at work.
Preconventional Stage (Earlier Self-Focused Viewpoint): When Sarah was younger, her
decisions were largely driven by self-interest. For example, she would avoid helping her
grandmother with chores because she wanted to spend time with her friends. She would
focus solely on her own career advancement at work, even if it meant not supporting her
colleagues.
Her reasoning at the time: "I need to focus on myself and my own goals. If I help others, I
might not have enough time or energy for what I want to do."
Transition 1. As women navigate their journey from the preconventional to the
conventional level, they begin to see the importance of their responsibilities towards
others. This marks a significant moment where they understand that their earlier moral
viewpoint might have seemed a bit self-focused.
Transition to Conventional Stage (Understanding Responsibilities Toward Others): As
Sarah grows older, she begins to recognize the importance of her relationships and
responsibilities. For example, she starts visiting her grandmother regularly, helping her
with groceries and household tasks, even when it’s inconvenient. At work, she takes time
to mentor a new colleague, sharing her knowledge and offering support, even though it
means putting in extra effort.
Her reasoning now: "I realize that my relationships and responsibilities matter. Helping
my grandmother and supporting my colleague make me feel connected and fulfilled. I see
now that my earlier focus on just myself was a bit narrow—I want to be someone who cares
for others."
2. Conventional Morality
Moral judgment becomes concentrated on caring for others. Women start to see
themselves as participants in a society whose claim to being good citizens relies on
helping and protecting others. This concern for others overrides their concern for
themselves, leading to a morality focused on self-sacrifice.
Example
Maria, a woman in her 30s, is a mother of two young children and works full-time as a
teacher. She has always been deeply committed to caring for her family and her students,
often putting their needs above her own. Over time, she begins to realize that neglecting
her own well-being is unsustainable and starts to find a healthier balance.
Early Conventional Morality (Self-Sacrifice): In her early years as a mother and teacher,
Maria’s moral reasoning was heavily focused on caring for others at the expense of herself.
For example, she would skip meals and lose sleep to ensure her children and students had
everything they needed. She rarely took time for herself, believing that her role was to
always be there for others.
Her reasoning at the time: "My job is to take care of everyone else. If I don’t, I’m failing as
a mother and a teacher. My needs don’t matter as much as theirs."
Transition 2. As women move into the second transition from conventional to
postconventional levels, they often find themselves trying to find a balance between caring
for others and honoring their own needs. It's a delicate shift that involves figuring out how
to harmonize their personal desires with the needs of those around them.
This leads to a shift in moral judgment away from "goodness" to "truth" as they start to
honestly assess their own desires, not just their responsibility to others.
Transition Within Conventional Morality (Balancing Care for Others and Self): As Maria
matures, she begins to recognize that constantly sacrificing herself is not sustainable or
healthy. She starts to make changes:
• She schedules regular "me time" to recharge, even if it means saying no to
some requests from others.
• She delegates tasks at work and home, trusting others to share the
responsibility.
• She teaches her children and students the importance of self-care,
modeling a healthier approach to relationships.
Her reasoning now: "I’ve realized that I can’t pour from an empty cup. Taking care of
myself isn’t selfish—it helps me be a better mom, teacher, and person. I can still care for
others, but I need to care for myself too."
3. Post-conventional Morality
Making moral judgments focuses on the principle of nonviolence. It's important to
remember that your own needs matter just as much as the needs of others. This balance
leads many women to develop a universal ethic of care and concern for everyone around
them.
Adhering to the obligation of care while avoiding harm or exploitation to themselves and
others enables women to accept responsibility for their choices.
Example
Lena, a woman in her 40s, is a community leader and advocate for social justice. She has
spent years working within her community to address issues like poverty, inequality, and
access to education. Over time, she begins to question whether the systems she’s working
within are truly fair and just, and she starts to take a more principled stand.
Postconventional Morality Perspective: At this stage, Lena’s moral reasoning is guided by
universal ethical principles and a deep sense of responsibility to humanity as a whole. She
is willing to challenge unjust systems and advocate for change, even if it means facing
criticism or personal sacrifice.
Lena learns that a local government policy disproportionately harms low-income families
by cutting funding for public schools in underserved areas. While many people in her
community accept the policy as "just the way things are," Lena decides to take action.
Action: Lena organizes a grassroots campaign to raise awareness about the policy’s
impact.
She collaborates with activists, educators, and families to draft a proposal
for equitable school funding.
She speaks out publicly, even though it risks her reputation and
relationships with some community leaders.
Reasoning This policy is unjust and harms the most vulnerable members of our
community. Every child deserves access to quality education, regardless of
their background. I have a responsibility to stand up for what’s right, even
if it’s difficult."
Outcome Lena’s campaign gains momentum, and the policy is eventually revised to
allocate more funding to underserved schools.
She reflects on her actions: "I knew it wouldn’t be easy, but I couldn’t stay
silent. Real change requires courage and a commitment to justice."
Key Characteristics of Postconventional Morality in This Example:
1. Universal Principles: Lena’s actions are guided by her belief in equality and justice
for all, not just by societal rules or expectations.
2. Challenging Injustice: She is willing to question and challenge systems that
perpetuate inequality, even if it means going against the status quo.
3. Ethic of Care: Her motivation is rooted in compassion and a desire to improve the
lives of others, particularly the marginalized.
4. Personal Responsibility: She takes responsibility for creating positive change, even
when it involves personal risk or sacrifice.
Summary
At the preconventional level, only the needs of the self are recognized.
At the conventional level, the needs of others are prioritized while the needs of the self are
denied.
At the postconventional level, a balance is struck between the needs of the self and others.
