Chapter 2 - THE MORAL AGENT

A. Culture in moral Behavior

1. Culture and Moral Behavior
2. Cultural and Ethical relativism
3. Arguments for and against Cultural and Ethical relativism
4. Asian and Filipino Morality?
5. How can Ethics help?
B. The moral agents: developing virtue as a habit
1. Moral Personhood: Agentive and non-agentive moral persons
2. Theories of Personhood
3. Moral Character and development: Deeds or Character?
4. Stages of Moral development

The Moral Agent

- Being capable of acting with reference to right and wrong.
- Moral agents are those agents expected to meet the demands of morality (choosing
between good and evil).
- Being capable of acting with reference to right and wrong.
- Moral agents are those agents expected to meet the demands of morality (choosing
between good and evil).
Characteristics of Moral Agent:
- Endowed with all possibilities and capabilities to act upon actions with moral
considerations. Has the ability to discern right from wrong and to be held
accountable for his or her actions.
Culture and Moral Behavior and Cultural and Ethical relativism
What is Culture?
- Culture is a aggregate of the learned beliefs, attitudes, values, norms and custom
of a society or group of people, shared by them and transmitted from generation
to generation within the society.
Culture and Moral Behaviour
- Culture refersal norms, and different cultures can have different beliefs about
what is right and wrong. According to the theory of cultural relativism, there is no
singular truth on which to base ethical or moral behavior, as our interpretations
of truths are influenced by our own culture.
- Moral behavior refers to a physical action or attitude that aligns with the
principles of a specific ethical system. This is important because moral behavior is
where the theories of ethics become applied to the real world, as opposed to the
morality of thoughts and ideas which may remain private.
Culture and Ethical Relativism
 Cultural relativism is the view that ethical and social standards reflect the
cultural context from which they are derived. Cultural relativists uphold that
cultures differ fundamentally from one another, and so do the moral frameworks
that structure relations within different societies.
  Ethical relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of
one's culture. That is, whether an action is right or wrong depends on the moral
norms of the society in which it is practiced. The same action may be morally
right in one society but be morally wrong in another. For the ethical relativist,
there are no universal moral standards -- standards that can be universally
applied to all peoples at all times. The only moral standards against which a
society's practices can be judged are its own. If ethical relativism is correct, there
can be no common framework for resolving moral disputes or for reaching
agreement on ethical matters among members of different societies.

Arguments for and against Cultural and Ethical relativism

What is Cultural relativism?
 Cultural relativism is the position that there is no universal standard to measure
cultures by, and that all cultural values and beliefs must be understood relative
to their cultural context, and not judged based on outside norms and values.
Proponents of cultural relativism also tend to argue that the norms and values of
one culture should not be evaluated using the norms and values of another.
 The concept was established by anthropologist Franz Boas, who first articulated
the idea in 1887: "civilization is not something absolute, but ... is relative, and ...
our ideas and conceptions are true only so far as our civilization goes". However,
Boas did not use the phrase "cultural relativism". The concept was spread by
Boas' students, such as Robert Lowie.

Problems encountered cultural relativism

2 categories of cultural relativism
Absolute: Everything that happens within a culture must and should not be
questioned by outsiders.
Critical: Creates questions about cultural practices in terms of who is accepting them
and why. Critical cultural relativism also recognizes power relationships.
- Absolute cultural relativism is displayed in many cultures, especially Africa, that
practice female genital cutting. This procedure refers to the partial or total
removal of the external female genitalia or any other trauma to the female
reproductive/genital organs. By allowing this procedure to happen, females are
considered women and then are able to be married. FGC is practiced mainly
because of culture, religion and tradition. Outside cultures such as the United
States look down upon FGC, but are unable to stop this practice from happening
because it is protected by its culture.

Cultural Relativism: 4 Arguments for and Againts

1. So many cultures disagree about so many different things.

- If the world is full of anything it is passionate disagreement. And because of this
it’s easy to wonder if there is any truth behind our moral claims. And since
everyone seems to be honest when they make these claims, it seems arrogant to
presume that any out of the multitude of nearly identical shouting voices is the
 right one. All that the existence of widespread, honest and heartfelt
disagreement tells us is that this shit is really hard to figure out. Nothing more.
- Further, there is more agreement that disagreement. Like so much in all of the
other sciences, though the disagreements we have about morality are salient, we
have a vast resource of agreements behind us. And again like in the sciences,
crazy opinions always lurk around somewhere, but people across the board are
social animals who place enormous value in giving respect to those who’ve
earned it; love among spouses, children, family and friends; in keeping one’s
promises; in protecting the innocent, and so on.
Cultural Relativism: Arguments for and Againts
- Different cultures believe different things. One doesn’t need to be an
anthropologist to see that the morality, ritual, and religion vary more and more
the further you travel, no matter what direction. In fact, these differences are
what define these groups of people. And not only are these values what organize
the lives of well everyone, but they are also what lay the meaning behind those
lives – whether political, cultural or religious in origin.

2. Without God, all is permitted.

- All laws need a legislator. So if there is no one up there making the rules, then
there are no rules. The presence of ‘moral rules’ is nothing more than what the
powerful in each culture have declared or what people, for whatever reason,
have simply made up. I’ve never found this argument to make any sense. First,
you have the Euthyphro Dilemma. I won’t go into the details, mostly because
I’ve already written a post on this. But, basically, either God has reasons for
making the moral rules He does, like human legislators in the analogy, or He
doesn’t and makes them up arbitrarily. If they are arbitrary, then that doesn’t
explain the force behind their value. We don’t think it right to keep promises
because some Deity willy-nilly decided that would be ‘right’. If God had reasons,
on the other hand, for commanding this or that, then it is those reasons and not
God, or any kind of other legislator, that supports morality.
- Looking back at the shortlist of moral values I list above, we can see what kind
of things those ‘reasons’ are. Harm, freedom, love, respect, suffering,
reputation, and so on are important in and of themselves. It is, for example, the
intrinsic value of friendship that supports the virtues that surround it – like trust
and compassion – and not that some arbitrary legislator happens to declare
friendship to be ‘good’. For a bit more detail, I wrote a long post here on the
grounding of ethics without god.
3. It’s important to be tolerant of others’ beliefs.
- If you claim morality is absolute then you are being intolerant of other people’s
beliefs. This leads to imperialism, conflict and maybe even worse: genocide. But
this argument rests on absolute moral claims themselves! Cultural Relativism
would certainly say that the person from a tolerant culture ought to be tolerant.
But it would also say that a person from an intolerant culture ought to be
intolerant. And with the very same force that we in our culture might be
 required to be tolerant, others should be intolerant. What is right for each is
simply what their respective cultures says is right – and yours arbitrarily says to
be tolerant.
- Instead, to believe that all people should be fair and tolerant instead of
genocidally intolerant is to claim that there are universal values outside of a
culture’s beliefs. It is only the person who rejects Cultural Relativism that
intolerance is in itself bad and who instead would promote tolerance
everywhere. Tolerance is about how you treat other people. It isn’t about what
you believe about their beliefs. So if I kick someone I disagree with out of my
store or petition such people be jailed then I’m being intolerant. If I believe they
are wrong, or even tell them I disagree with them, all I’m being is truthful. I’m
stating a fact about our disagreement. Disagreement itself does not imply
disrespect for those you disagree with.
4. Different people in different contexts need different moral codes.
- We can’t all have the same moral code because everyone lives in a different
world with different demands, expectations, histories, symbols, and problems to
overcome. We need to respect the fact that people live different lives and not
impose our rules on others or judge them by what works for us.
- Again so true!! And this does bring up a certain kind of relativism, but
certainly isn’t Cultural Relativism as discussed above. The specific rules and
norms at the ‘highest’ day to day level of practice do, and ought to, vary culture
by culture. They are only either true or false depending on whether you are
talking about this context here or that context there. However, what makes a set
of norms better than another in a given context might be specified at a broader
and more ‘fundamental’ or ‘basic’ level. Think of the classic anthropological
distinction between collectivism versus individualism. Some cultures thrive
better as the first, while others value, and rightly so, the latter. What provides
the difference is the kind of values and rules the cultures need to flourish. In the
collectivist culture it might be the case a closer community and deeper inter-
dependent bonds are necessary for anyone to be able to flourish or for the group
to survive. However, in another context, where each man and woman might be
able to survive more independently, individualism and valuing competition leads
to an explosion of creativity, entrepreneurship and invention.
Asian and Filipino Moral Behavior: Strengths and Weaknesss

STRENGTHS
Close Kinship - a Filipino considers family as an important social structure that they must
love and care. Close family ties results to the family still being intact regardless that the
children are old and with families of their own.
Respect for Elders - the use of "po" and "opo" in conversing or addressing older people is
a sign of a Filipino's respect for the elders. Filipinos do not send their elders to nursing
homes because they still value the worth and presence of the elders at home po at opo.
Hospitality - the Filipino community are very warm and hospitable. They even give
"pasalubong" (welcome gifts) and "pabaon" (farewell gifts) to guests. At times, they
sacrifice their own comfort to accommodate their guests very well.
Strong Faith in God - their faith in God keeps them united to overcome all the problems
and challenges of life.
Flexibility / Adaptability / Resiliency - the Filipinos have the trait to laugh at themselves
and their misfortunes or failures. This is a coping mechanism to balance emotional stress
and to boost the capacity to survive. They can smile in midst of problems and hardships.
They can still crack jokes despite the stresses of their daily lives and during calamities.
They are strong and cheerful people.
Ingenuity and Creativity - they are good inventors. They often improvise and make
productive use of available resources.
Patience and Self-sacrifice - a remarkable quality of a Filipino is his capacity to endure
difficulties and hardships. Maybe related to the long suffering they endured during the
many colonization in Philippine history. They are patient enough to wait for their turn to
be blessed with greener pastures as long as they do what is right and good.
Hard work and Industry - Filipinos are globally recognized for their excellent
performance in any physical and technical tasks. Maybe visible due to the desire for
economic security and advancement for one's self and family.
Fairness and Justice - they always show concern for the well-being of others. They
uphold
the humanity of all people and regard everyone with respect and empathy. They are
keen on interpersonal relationships, their primary source of security and happiness.
Fairness & Justice -> Equality -> Social Justice -> Development & Progress.
Readiness to Share and Help - they’re always ready to lend a hand, not only in times of
need (calamities or disasters) but also in festive occasions ("fiestas", baptisms and
weddings). The "bayanihan" spirit, or giving help without expecting something in return,
of a Filipino is widely admired.

WEAKNESSES
“Mamaya Na” or “Bukas Na Lang” Habit - a poor habit, a sign of laziness, of leaving for a
later time what can be done at the moment or today. Thus resulting to stacked workload
to be done and then complain about it.
Crab Mentality - a troublesome trait evident in a Filipino where when one sees the
progress of a comrade, the other becomes resentful rather than happy for the
achievement. Rather than to praise, he would highlight everything negative about that
person in an effort to bring him down or destroy his reputation. They would focus on
other's own faults rather their own inadequacies.
"Patigasan" - most Filipinos find it hard to say "I'm sorry” or “pasensya na". Their
precious pride always gets the best of them.
"Kanya kanya" - a trait which shows self-centeredness and lack of regard for others.
There are Filipinos who give priority to what they and their families could have, rather
 than what they can do to share their wealth and serve others better. This trait shows
poor signs of patriotism, loyalty to community, and concern for the needs of others.
"Bahala Na" - this is also synonymous to the phrase “Que sera sera” (Whatever will be,
will be), or “Hakuna Matata” (No Worries). It leaves everything to chance or just let the
circumstances take care of themselves, embracing luck over good reason.
"Ningas Kugon” – “kugon” is a kind of grass that burns easily when dry but extinguished
easily as well. Like the cogon grass, Filipinos start things with great enthusiasm but at the
first sign of difficulty, the enthusiasm is consumed as fast as it has ignited.
Colonial Mentality – Filipinos prefer foreign-made products instead of patronizing
Philippine-made ones. This result to higher gains for foreign businessmen than local
businessmen. Thus, it motivates Filipino businessmen to improve the quality of their
products to make it more competitive against foreign ones.

What is Ethics?
- We construed as theorizing about the proper regulating mechanisms for our
behavior. It tells us what to aspire to and also constrains our actions. It is
informed by psychological elements, for example, sympathy, geneWe can initially
define ethics as the study of the origin and scope of the language of morality.
Morals are the values that may derive from a theory or set of principles that
concern good and bad, right and wrong, justice and fairness.
- Ethics can brosity, compassion, kindness, concern for others, or even revenge
or outrage. However, these traits can lead to confusing and sometimes
conflicting impulses, and thus it is useful to codify them in some way. We can do
that by using the power of reasoning to work out priorities, make our actions
consistent and predictable, and communicate our ideas of right and wrong, and
justice and fairness to others.
- There are continuing debates about the origins and mix of our dispositions and
reason: Some say that we can see the hand of the divine that allows us to rise
above our animal nature, whereas others think that ethical practices are
evidence of our evolution as a species. For the present we can put those debates
aside and recognize that all human societies exhibit morality, for example,
cooperation, child care, and the importance of keeping promises. Moreover, we
not only have those traits but also are capable of critiquing and improving our
behavior and perhaps that of others as well.
How can Ethics help?
- We can think of ethics as the principles that guide our behavior toward making the best
choices that contribute to the common good of all. Ethics is what guides us to tell the
truth, keep our promises, or help someone in need. There is a framework of ethics
underlying our lives on a daily basis, helping us make decisions that create positive
impacts and steering us away from unjust outcomes. Ethics guides us to make the
world a better place through the choices we make. Ethics is what guides us to tell the
truth, keep our promises, or help someone in need. There is a framework of ethics
underlying our lives on a daily basis, helping us make decisions that create positive
impacts and steering us away from unjust outcomes.
Introduction to Moral Personhood
 Moral personhood refers to individuals recognized as moral agents, capable of
understanding right from wrong and taking responsibility for their actions.
Importance of Moral Personhood in Ethics
 Moral personhood emphasizes the value of individuals, guides ethical decision-
making, and promotes fairness and well-being in society.
The Difference between Moral Agents and Moral Patients
 Moral agents have the ability to make moral choices and are accountable for
their actions, while moral patients lack this capacity.

Theories of Personhood

 Theories of personhood offer different perspectives on what defines an individual

and their moral agency.
- Philosophical Perspectives
 Philosophical views shape our understanding of individual identity and moral
responsibility.
- Psychological Perspectives
 Psychological theories examine cognitive and behavioural aspects of personhood.
- Sociological Perspectives
 Sociological insights explore how societal norms and structures influence
individual identity and behaviour within society.
Moral Character and development: Deeds or Character?
- Moral character refers to the traits and qualities that define an individual's
ethical and virtuous behavior. It involves qualities like honesty, integrity,
empathy, and fairness. Moral development, on the other hand, is the process
through which individuals acquire and internalize these moral values and
principles. This development often occurs through socialization, education, and
life experiences, and it is influenced by various factors such as cultural norms,
familial upbringing, and personal experiences.

Stages of Moral development

The stages of moral development, as proposed by psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg,
consist of three main levels, each with two sub-stages:
Pre-conventional Level:
a. Stage 1 - Obedience and Punishment Orientation: At this stage, individuals obey
rules to avoid punishment.
b. Stage 2 - Individualism and Exchange: Here, individuals pursue their own interests
while also conforming to the expectations of others.
Conventional Level:
a. Stage 3 - Interpersonal Relationships: Individuals seek approval from others by
conforming to social norms and expectations.
b. Stage 4 - Maintaining Social Order: This stage involves conforming to authority and
societal rules to maintain social order and stability.
 Post-conventional Level:
a. Stage 5 - Social Contract and Individual Rights: Individuals recognize the
importance of social contracts and individual rights, valuing democracy and the rule
of law.
b. Stage 6 - Universal Principles: At this highest stage, individuals adhere to universal
ethical principles, even if they conflict with societal norms and laws, guided by
principles such as justice, equality, and human rights.
- It's important to note that not everyone progresses through all stages, and moral
development can be influenced by various factors, including culture, education,
and life experiences. Additionally, criticisms and alternative theories to
Kohlberg's stages have been proposed over the years.

MORAL PERSONHOOD: AGENTIVE AND NON-AGENTIVE MORAL PERSONS

• Agentative Moral Person: refers to an individual who possesses the ability to
make conscious decisions and is held responsible for their actions based on moral
principles. This type of person is considered morally accountable for their choices
and behavior.
• Non-agentative moral person: refers to an entity or being that is not capable of
making conscious decisions or being morally accountable for their actions due to
their inherent nature or limitations.

CHARACTERISTICS OF AGENTATIVE MORAL PERSON

1. Free Will: An agentative moral person has the capacity to exercise free will and make
choices based on their own values, beliefs, and ethical considerations.
2. Moral Responsibility: They are held accountable for their actions and the
consequences that result from their choices. They are expected to understand the moral
implications of their decisions and act accordingly.
3. Autonomy: An agentative moral person is capable of independent thought and
decision-making. They have the ability to critically evaluate situations, determine right
from wrong, and take responsibility for their actions.
4. Ethical Considerations: They consider ethical principles and moral values when making
decisions. They strive to abide by moral standards and act in accordance with what is
perceived as morally right.
CHARACTERISTICS OF NON-AGENTATIVE MORAL PERSON
1. Lack of Conscious Decision-Making: Non-agentative moral persons are unable to make
conscious choices or decisions based on moral principles due to their inherent nature or
lack of cognitive abilities.
2. Determined Behavior: Their actions and behavior are driven by external factors,
instincts, or predetermined algorithms, rather than conscious moral considerations.
3. Limited Moral Accountability: They may still have an impact on moral situations or
ethical dilemmas, but they are not held morally responsible for their actions since they
lack the agency to make deliberate choices.
THEORIES OF PERSONHOOD
1. Psychological Theories
• Cognitive Theory: Defines personhood based on cognitive abilities, such as self-
awareness, rationality, and consciousness.
• Developmental Theory: Views personhood as a continuous process that evolves
over time, beginning with basic sensory-motor skills and progressing to complex
cognitive abilities.
2. Sociocultural Theories
• Social-Relational Theory: Emphasizes the social and relational aspects of
personhood, defining individuals as interconnected beings shaped by their
relationships and social context.
• Cultural Theory: Asserts that personhood is culturally constructed and varies
across different societies and cultural contexts.
3. Philosophical Theories
• Substance Theory: Regards personhood as inherent in an individual's unique
substance or essence, often associated with characteristics like consciousness,
rationality, and moral agency.
• Narrative Theory: Considers personhood as a product of ongoing narratives and
stories that we construct to make sense of our lives and experiences.
4. Legal and Moral Theories
• Legal Personhood: Addresses the legal rights and responsibilities granted to
individuals by the law, often linked to concepts like capacity, autonomy, and legal
recognition.
• Moral Personhood: Focuses on the moral and ethical dimensions of personhood,
exploring questions of moral worth, dignity, and inherent value.
MORAL CHARACTER AND DEVELOPMENT: DEEDS OR CHARACTER?
• Deeds refer to the actions and behaviors individuals engage in.
• Character refers to the underlying traits, virtues, and values that guide those
actions
The Interplay of Deeds and Character
• Deeds and character are interconnected and mutually reinforcing.
• Good deeds can contribute to the development of positive character traits.
• A strong character enhances the likelihood of consistently engaging in moral
actions
STAGES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT
• Kohlberg identified three levels of moral reasoning:
1. Pre-conventional
2. Conventional and;
3. Post-conventional
• Each level is associated with increasingly complex stages of moral development.
Level 1: Preconventional
• Throughout the preconventional level, a child’s sense of morality is externally
controlled. Children accept and believe the rules of authority figures, such as
parents and teachers. A child with pre-conventional morality has not yet
adopted or internalized society’s conventions regarding what is right or wrong,
but instead focuses largely on external consequences that certain actions may
bring.
Stage 1: Obedience-and-Punishment Orientation
• Focuses on the child’s desire to obey rules and avoid being punished. For
example, an action is perceived as morally wrong because the perpetrator is
punished; the worse the punishment for the act is, the more “bad” the act is
perceived to be.
Stage 2: Instrumental Orientation
• Expresses the “what’s in it for me?” position, in which right behavior is defined
by whatever the individual believes to be in their best interest. Stage two
reasoning shows a limited interest in the needs of others, only to the point where
it might further the individual’s own interests.
 • As a result, concern for others is not based on loyalty or intrinsic respect, but
rather a “you scratch my back, and I’ll scratch yours” mentality. An example
would be when a child is asked by his parents to do a chore. The child asks
“what’s in it for me?” and the parents offer the child an incentive by giving him
an allowance.

Level 2: Conventional
• Throughout the conventional level, a child’s sense of morality is tied to personal
and societal relationships. Children continue to accept the rules of authority
figures, but this is now due to their belief that this is necessary to ensure positive
relationships and societal order. Adherence to rules and conventions is
somewhat rigid during these stages, and a rule’s appropriateness or fairness is
seldom questioned.
Stage 3: Good Boy, Nice Girl Orientation
• In stage 3, children want the approval of others and act in ways to avoid
disapproval. Emphasis is placed on good behavior and people being “nice” to
others.
Stage 4: Law-and-Order Orientation
• In stage 4, the child blindly accepts rules and convention because of their
importance in maintaining a functioning society. Rules are seen as being the
same for everyone, and obeying rules by doing what one is “supposed” to do is
seen as valuable and important.
• Moral reasoning in stage four is beyond the need for individual approval
exhibited in stage three. If one person violates a law, perhaps everyone would—
thus there is an obligation and a duty to uphold laws and rules. Most active
members of society remain at stage four, where morality is still predominantly
dictated by an outside force.
Level 3: Postconventional
• Throughout the postconventional level, a person’s sense of morality is defined in
terms of more abstract principles and values. People now believe that some laws
are unjust and should be changed or eliminated. This level is marked by a
growing realization that individuals are separate entities from society and that
individuals may disobey rules inconsistent with their own principles.
• Post-conventional moralists live by their own ethical principles—principles that
typically include such basic human rights as life, liberty, and justice—and view
rules as useful but changeable mechanisms, rather than absolute dictates that
must be obeyed without question. Because post-conventional individuals elevate
their own moral evaluation of a situation over social conventions, their behavior,
especially at stage six, can sometimes be confused with that of those at the pre-
conventional level. Some theorists have speculated that many people may never
reach this level of abstract moral reasoning.
Stage 5: Social-Contract Orientation
• In stage 5, the world is viewed as holding different opinions, rights, and values.
Such perspectives should be mutually respected as unique to each person or
 community. Laws are regarded as social contracts rather than rigid edicts. Those
that do not promote the general welfare should be changed when necessary to
meet the greatest good for the greatest number of people. This is achieved
through majority decision and inevitable compromise. Democratic government is
theoretically based on stage five reasoning.
Stage 6: Universal-Ethical-Principal Orientation
• In stage 6, moral reasoning is based on abstract reasoning using universal ethical
principles. Generally, the chosen principles are abstract rather than concrete and
focus on ideas such as equality, dignity, or respect. Laws are valid only insofar as
they are grounded in justice, and a commitment to justice carries with it an
obligation to disobey unjust laws.
• People choose the ethical principles they want to follow, and if they violate those
principles, they feel guilty. In this way, the individual acts because it is morally
right to do so (and not because he or she wants to avoid punishment), it is in
their best interest, it is expected, it is legal, or it is previously agreed upon.
Although Kohlberg insisted that stage six exists, he found it difficult to identify
individuals who consistently operated at that level.
Critiques Of Kohlberg’s Theory
• Kohlberg has been criticized for his assertion that women seem to be deficient in
their moral reasoning abilities when compared to men.
• Carol Gilligan (1982), a research assistant of Kohlberg, criticized her former
mentor’s theory because it was based so narrowly on research using white,
upper-class men and boys. She argued that women are not deficient in their
moral reasoning and instead proposed that males and females reason differently:
girls and women focus more on staying connected and
maintaining interpersonal relationships.
• Kohlberg’s theory has been criticized for emphasizing justice to the exclusion of
other values, with the result that it may not adequately address the arguments of
those who value other moral aspects of actions. Similarly, critics argue that
Kohlberg’s stages are culturally biased—that the highest stages in particular
reflect a westernized ideal of justice based on individualistic thought. This is
biased against those that live in non-Western societies that place less emphasis
on individualism.
• Another criticism of Kohlberg’s theory is that people frequently demonstrate
significant inconsistency in their moral judgements. This often occurs in moral
dilemmas involving drinking and driving or business situations where participants
have been shown to reason at a lower developmental stage, typically using more
self-interest driven reasoning (i.e., stage two) than authority and social order
obedience driven reasoning (i.e., stage four). Critics argue that Kohlberg’s theory
cannot account for such inconsistencies.