.

THE MORAL AGENT

THE MORAL AGENT
Welcome to Lesson 2 in our subject, Ethics. After discussing the definition of the key terms in Lesson 1, let us
take a look at the moral agent. The following topics will be discussed in this chapter:
A. Culture in Moral Behavior
1. Culture and its role in moral behavior
2. What is cultural relativism? Why is it not tenable in ethics?
3. Is there an Asian and Filipino understanding of moral behavior?
B. The Moral Agent: Developing Virtue as a Moral Habit
How is a moral character developed?
LEARNING OUTCOMES
After you have studied the different topics under this lesson, you should be able to:
1. explain the relationship between culture and moral behavior;
2. define in your own words the meaning of moral behavior, and cultural relativism;
3. describe how is moral character developed; and
4. enumerate the stages of moral development.
For you to achieve the learning outcomes stated above, please take time to read, understand and analyze the
key concepts given below. For questions or clarifications, you may contact me on my cellphone number
indicated on the announcement part of our class.
KEY CONCEPTS
WHAT IS CULTURE?
It is the system of shared beliefs, values, customs, behaviors, and artifacts that the members of society
use to cope with their world and with one another, and these are transmitted from generation to generation
through learning. Culture also refers to the traditions and customs that govern behavior and beliefs, which are
transmitted through learning.
CHARACTERISTICS OF CULTURE
A. Culture is learned
Son : (using the power drill to catch fish). I cannot catch fish today.
Father : What is it son?
Son : I cannot catch fish with this tool.
Father : Son, this is a power drill and not for catching a fish. Here is the perfect tool for catching fish, the
fishing rod. This is the best tool to be used to catch a fish.
Son : That is only stick you are holding, it is not that sturdy to catch fish.
Father : Even so, but this is the most correct tool to use.
(Father and son both submerged their tools in the water, after a few minutes.)
Son : I think I baited a fish so fast with my tool.
Father : Electric was not created yet, but if it had, I think you will just electrocute yourself with that tool.
Recap: Culture is learned because people learn it from each other.
B. Culture is shared:
Father : You need to eat all your vegetables in your plate Miranda. Think of the starving children in Africa.
Grandmother (pointing to his son.) You have to eat yours too son, remember the starving children in
Germany. Children now do not have an idea how we survived during our time.
Recap: Culture is shared, an attribute of individuals as members of groups.
C. Culture is symbolic:
Symbol is something, verbal or non-verbal, that arbitrarily and by convention stands for something else, with
which it has no necessary or natural connection.
Symbolic Gesture: is an action happening outside the language system. Instead of saying it, we tend to act it
out so that the receiver of an action can understand it.
Recap: Culture is a symbolic thought that is unique to humans and is crucial to cultural learning.
D. Culture is All-Encompassing:
The most interesting and significant cultural forces are those that affect people every day of their lives
particularly those that influence children during inculturation.
Recap: Culture is all-encompassing. Anthropologists take a broad view of culture to include even
seemingly things.
E. Culture is integrated
Lito : We already have religion.
Apollo : But our God is very powerful, he could give big blessings to his people.
Lito : Your god says we can only worship him, he said we are separate from the earth and Sky, plants and
animals.
Apollo : That is correct; you are special in God’s eyes. God placed man on Earth as well as to roll over it and
do what they want to do with the earth, plants and animals.
Lito : We believe we’re part of the Earth, the sky and the plants and animals are their brothers and sisters.
We are not better than the buffalo, because they are our brothers and sisters.
Apollo : That is primitive and non-sense. Your beliefs are pagan, you and your people will go to hell when you
will die except my religion.
Lito : Your religion is so mean, with jealousy, angriness and boastful. Angry god doesn’t fit in us lives. We
do not believe that there is heaven in the way you describe. Our great god spirit is not angry, jealous and not
boastful, instead he shows good things, loving and kind. He gives us everything we need, and he will not
punish us nor withhold things we cannot. You should leave; your god and your religions are not welcome here.
Apollo : I will leave now but if you change your mind, just contact me.
Recap: Cultures are integrated. They are organized around a set of core values-key, basic or central
values. New ideas that do not fit with these core values are rejected. When a core value changes, a large
part of the culture also changes.
REFERENCES:
BOOKS
Bulaong, O.G., et.al. 2018. Ethics: Foundations of Moral Valuation. Rex Book Store. Nicanor
Reyes St., Manila, Philippines.
Carino, J. V. 2018. Fundamentals of Ethics. C and E Publishing, Inc. 839 EDSA, South Triangle,
Quezon City, Philppines.
Maboloc, C.R.B. 2010. Ethics and Human Dignity. Rex Book Store. Nicanor Reyes St., Manila,
Philippines.
Pasco, M.O.D. 2018. Ethics. C and E Publishing, Inc. 839 EDSA, South Triangle, Quezon City,
Philippines.
Quito, E.S. 2008. Fundamentals of Ethics. C and E Publishing, Inc. 839 EDSA, South Triangle,
Quezon City, Philippines.
1.1. CULTURE AND ITS ROLE IN MORAL BEHAVIOR
CULTURE AND ITS ROLE IN MORAL BEHAVIOR
Culture undeniably does play a significant pseudo role within shaping moral behavior and extends even further
to social norms. Arguably, rather than defining our moral behavior per se, it influences and changes our
definitions of what ought to be deemed morally acceptable by consistent exposure to it. The main determining
question is whether moral behavior/actions are independent in comparison with the case in question. Saying
yes would be implicitly stating we have inherent morality/moral norms that are in not necessarily attributable
to exposure to external factors - e.g. culture.
Culture, itself, is an individualistic, man-made concept of collective identity that is open to complete
subjectivity. The fact so many ‘cultures’ exist is evidence of this - solely due to the differentiation of societal
norms from place to place.
The subjectivity argument for culture can be stretched further and applied to morality. Where culture does
form the basis of some of our morality is in the fact that, whilst we might share certain moral views, what is
deemed morally acceptable/repugnant differs from person to person.
Example: Western foreign culture generally promotes a more laissez-faire mentality towards personal
freedoms and, by extension, morality. This is typically defined by the regularity or the social defined practices.
By way of example, take the issue of arranged/forced marriage. From a Western culture standpoint, it would be
generally widely agreed that forced marriage is a morally reprehensible concept and not acceptable under any
circumstances. By way of contrast, the regularity of the same concept within south-Asian society would be
seen much more favorably due to the level of habitual exposure individuals within that society have to it.
Essentially, the cultural bias by which we form our moral opinions is shaped by social acceptance within our
own individual societies. Whilst there are some obvious exceptions, this rationale can be applied to most moral
concepts, where there is a distinct difference between the way in which they are viewed in one culture versus
another.
1.2. WHAT IS CULTURAL RELATIVISM?
WHAT IS CULTURAL RELATIVISM?
Cultural relativism is the principle of regarding the beliefs, values, and practices of a culture from the
viewpoint of that culture itself. It has greatly influenced social sciences such as anthropology. In sociology, the
principle is sometimes practiced to avoid cultural bias. In research, it is also applied to avoid judging another
culture by the standards of one's own culture. For this reason, cultural relativism has been considered an
attempt to avoid ethnocentrism. Cultural relativism is related to but often distinguished from moral relativism,
the view that morality is relative to a standard, especially a cultural standard.
ETHNOCENTRISM: It means believing that the way you are used to doing things is the only right way to do
them, and that people or cultures that do things differently are wrong.
Example: Japanese people use chopsticks whenever they eat, but not necessarily to American people.
XENOCENTRISM: It refers to the preference for the products, style, culture, people, significant others, and
food of others, rather than of one's own.
Example: The American belief that Europeans produce superior automotive vehicles.
We believe that if the product is made in China, it has low quality.
1.3. WHY IS CULTURAL RELATIVSIM NOT TENABLE IN ETHICS?
WHY IS CULTURAL RELATIVSIM NOT TENABLE IN ETHICS?
“When in Rome, do as the Romans do.” We have all heard that advice. If we are talking about following the
age-old Italian practice of eating salad after the main course, doing as the Romans do is fine. But, if some
present-day Romans want to resurrect the ancient Roman practice of “damnatio ad bestias”, in which criminals
and other deviants were fed to the lions, it would be irrational to follow that cruel practice just because it is
what the Romans, at one time, did.
Relativism is the belief that all it takes to make some potentially harmful act ‘right’ is the individual’s or
group’s claim that it is ‘right.’ You can tell that someone is being a relativist when you hear, “Who am I to
judge?” or “I can’t tell another person what’s right for her.” When people say it is not okay to judge someone
else, or judge a specific culture’s practice by outside standards, they are practicing Relativism. And, they’re
generally not thinking very deeply about what that means.
There is more than one right way to live one’s life. That is where Relativists are on the right track.
Tolerance is indeed a virtue. But, we can allow for a wide range of ethically permitted behaviors and still agree
that some actions are wrong – that is to say, ethically prohibited. The problem of being a relativist, if the
relativists are consistent, is that they can NEVER make moral judgments about another person’s or group’s
actions. And human beings just do not function that way.
It is human nature to protect ourselves and our loved ones from being caused harm. How would you respond if
someone stole your sister’s smart phone? Broke into your house? Or even held you, prisoner just because they
wanted to? It is unlikely that you would uphold that person’s right to do what he felt was right for him. So we
all make moral judgments, but the problem is that we often do it inconsistently.
A gunman opening fire in a movie theater, that is simply wrong. Terrorists blowing up school buildings on the
other side of the world are awful. It is immoral. It is wrong to cause innocent people pain and death, regardless
of mental illness or the point that the terrorists are trying to make.
Different cultures can have different customs such as when it is proper to serve the salad course or how to
honor religious beliefs. But when we move into the realm of ethics, we have to follow some universal rules
like “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
The American philosopher James Rachels provided a clear argument against the validity of cultural relativism
in the realm of ethics. Rachels defines cultural relativism as the position that claims that there is no such thing
as objective truth in the realm of morality. The argument of this position is that since different cultures have
different moral codes, then there is no one correct moral code that all cultures must follow. Rachels provides a
counter-argument by analogy: just because some believed that the earth was flat, while some believe it is
spherical, it does not mean that there is no objective truth to the actual shape of the earth.
Rachels posits three absurd consequences of accepting the claim of cultural relativism. These are:
1. If cultural relativism was correct, then one cannot criticize the practices or beliefs of another culture
anymore as long as that culture thinks that what it is doing is correct. But if that is the case, then the Jews, for
example, cannot criticize the Nazis’ plan to exterminate all Jews in World War II, since obviously, the Nazis
believed that they were doing the right thing.
2. If cultural relativism was correct, then one cannot even criticize the practices or beliefs of one’s own culture.
If that is the case, the black South African citizens under the system of apartheid, a policy of racial segregation
that privileges the dominant race in a society, could not criticize that official state position
3. If cultural relativism was correct, then one cannot even accept that moral progress can happen. If that is the
case, then the fact that many societies now recognize women’s rights and children’s rights does not necessarily
represent a better situation than before when societies refused to recognize that women and children even had
rights.
Ethics, therefore, should neither be reduced to one’s own cultural standards, nor should it simplistically
dismiss one’s unique cultural beliefs and practices. The latter can possibly enlighten her toward what is
truly ethical. What is important is that one does not wander into ethical situations blindly, with the naïve
assumption that ethical issues will be resolved automatically by her beliefs and traditions. Instead, she should
challenge herself to continuously work toward a fuller maturity in ethical decision-making
1.4. IS THERE AN ASIAN AND FILIPINO UNDERSTANDING OF MORAL BEHAVIOR?
IS THERE AN ASIAN AND FILIPINO UNDERSTANDING OF MORAL BEHAVIOR?
A common opinion many people hold is that one’s culture dictates what is right or wrong for an
individual. For such people, the saying when in Rome, do as the Romans do applies in deciding moral issues.
This quote implies that one’s culture is inescapable, that is, one has to look into the standards of her society to
resolve all her ethical questions with finality. How she relates to herself, her close relations, her own society,
with other societies, and with the natural world are all predetermined by her membership in her society and
culture.
Generalizations concerning supposed Filipino traits sometimes end up as empty stereotypes, especially
since one may be hard put to think if any other culture does not exhibit such traits. For instance, in the
case of what many assume is a trait that Filipinos possess, namely hospitality, can we say that Chinese are not
hospitable? Most notably, they are hospitable too, but they may exhibit such hospitality in radically different
ways. Thus, to simply say that there is a Filipino way of doing things, including a Filipino way of thinking
about what the right thing to do and why, remains a matter for discussion. Is there really a Filipino morality
that may be distinct from a Chinese morality? We hear claims from time to time that Americans are
individualistic; Filipinos are communal, a supposed difference that grounds, for some people, radically
different sets of moral values. But one may ask: Is there really any radical difference between one culture’s
moral reasoning and another’s? Or do all cultures share in at least some fundamental values and that the
differences are not on the level of value but on the level of its manifestation in the context of different socio-
historical-cultural dimensions? One culture, because of its particular history, may construct hospitality in a
particular way and manifest it in its own customs and traditions. Yet, both cultures honor hospitality.

Thus, the challenge of ethics is not the removal of one’s culture because that is what makes one unique.
Instead, one must dig deeper into her own culture in order to discover how her own people have most
meaningfully explored possibly universal human questions or problems within the particularity of her
own people’s native ground. Hence, hospitality, for example, may be a species-wide question. But how we
Filipinos observe and express hospitality is an insight we Filipinos must explore because it may be in our own
practices that we see how best we had responded to this human question. It may be best because we responded
specifically to the particularity of our own environmental and historical situation. One can then benefit by
paying attention to her own unique cultural heritage, because doing so may give her a glimpse into the
profound ways her people have grappled with the question of “What ought I to do?”

1.5. MORAL CHARACTER

MORAL CHARACTER
The word "character" is derived from the Ancient Greek word "charakter", referring to a mark impressed upon
a coin. Later it came to mean a point by which one thing was told apart from others. There are two approaches
when dealing with moral character:
Normative ethics involve moral standards that exhibit right and wrong conduct. It is a test of proper behavior
and determining what is right and wrong.
Applied ethics involve specific and controversial issues along with a moral choice, and tend to involve
situations where people are either for or against the issue.
Here are other definitions of moral character:
 Evaluative orientation that distinguishes good and bad and prescribes good
 Sense of obligation toward standards of a social collective
 Sense of responsibility for acting out of concern for others
 Concern for the rights of others
 Commitment to honesty in interpersonal relationships
 State of mind that causes negative emotional reactions to immoral acts
In 1982 V. Campbell and R. Bond proposed the following as major sources in influencing character and
moral development:
 heredity
 early childhood experience
 modelling by important adults and older youth
 peer influence
 the general physical and social environment
 the communications media
 the teachings of schools and other institutions
 specific situations and roles that elicit corresponding behavior
1.6. MORAL DEVELOPMENT
MORAL DEVELOPMENT
Moral development refers to the process whereby people form a progressive sense of what is right and wrong,
proper and improper. As implied by the term development, human moral sense is commonly seen to involve a
movement from simple and finite definitions of right and wrong to more complex ways of distinguishing right
from wrong.
This concept focuses on the emergence, change, and understanding of morality from infancy through
adulthood. Morality develops across a lifetime and is influenced by an individual's experiences and their
behavior when faced with moral issues through different periods' physical and cognitive development. In short,
morality concerns an individual's growing sense of what is right and wrong; it is for this reason that young
children have different moral judgement and character than that of a grown adult. Morality in itself is often a
synonym for rightness or goodness. It refers to a certain code of conduct that is derived from one's culture,
religion or personal philosophy that guides one's actions, behaviors and thoughts. This term is related to
psychology. There are other types of development such as social development, physical development and
cognitive development.
Notions of morality development have been developed over centuries; the earliest came from
philosophers like Confucius, Aristotle, and Rousseau, who all took a more humanist perspective and
focused on the development of the conscience and sense of virtue. In the modern day, empirical research
has explored morality through a moral psychology lens by theorists like Sigmund Freud and its relation to
cognitive development by theorists like Jean Piaget, Lawrence Kohlberg, B. F. Skinner, Carol Gilligan and
Judith Smetana.
The interest in morality spans many disciplines (e.g., philosophy, economics, biology, and political
science) and specializations within psychology (e.g., social, cognitive, and cultural). In order to investigate
how individuals understand morality, it is essential to consider their beliefs, emotions, attitudes, and behaviors
that contribute to their moral understanding. Additionally, researchers in the field of moral development
consider the role of peers and parents in facilitating moral development, the role of conscience and values,
socialization and cultural influences, empathy and altruism, and positive development, in order to understand
what factors impact morality of an individual more completely.
1.7. STAGES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT
STAGES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT
Out of the many theories, one that is very interesting is Kohlberg's three-level theory. Is this a good
theory to go ahead in case of confusion and an ethical dilemma? Well this theory is not fail proof and there are
some criticisms about this. The theory approaches ethics from a justice standpoint where different cultures,
different countries can have different approaches.
This theory is based on a life cycle of human development from Pre-conventional states to the
Conventional States to the Post Conventional state. With each level, the power of thinking increases and the
ability to think and articulate from different perspectives and viewpoints increases.
LEVEL 1
STAGE 1
Obedience & Punishment
This stage is mostly manifested by children. Elders teach them to follow a certain conduct in the absence of
which they are punished. This is an elementary state of mind of the child who tries to follow the best way in
his/her own realm. Very few of them remain in this state when they grow up. But in certain situations most
elders still shift back to this stage.
STAGE 2
Instrumental and Relative Orientation
A sense of individuality develops. It depends heavily on the culture and the surroundings. Children recognize
that in addition to their own needs they need to follow certain principles for their near and dear ones. This is a
very important state because the mind starts to mature and grown up can actually recollect the virtues learnt at
this period consciously or sub consciously.
LEVEL 2
STAGE 3
Conventional sense of moral
The stage evolves from a chasm of innocence to a new world of family and friends. But it still remains within
the boundaries of the known environment and conformance and obedience take control. However this is the
inception when the mind starts to revolve and go beyond the boundaries set by the conventional world of
family and friends.
STAGE 4
Law and Order orientation
When the mind finally leaves the boundaries it meets new constraints of the laws of the society and the land
and the religion. A delinquent mind can severely affect this development because it does not get answers to its
questions any more. The cultural evolution lays its foundations which remain till death for most individuals.
LEVEL 3
STAGE 5
A thought leadership stage
Very few people go beyond thinking about themselves and their immediate near and dear ones and start
thinking of opinions and arguments of other people. The intellectual capital or intelligentsia consists of this
stage where politics, beliefs, values trespass each other.
STAGE 6
Moral Guru
A stage where leaders evolve to become thinkers. A universal stage where great people of great nations have
thought in a different way, the way that became the societies’ or nation’s way in future. This state may conflict
with rules and principles and challenge the conventional with abstract arguments to judge good or bad.