LESSON 3 : Stages of Moral

Development
Reporters:
Najib S. Bato
Raymund R. Sumaylo
. Arrabella Bonghanoy
 Intended Learning Outcomes
• Describe each stage of moral development
• Evaluate one's personal growth against the
stages of personal development
INTRODUCTION
- If a human person has developed a moral
character, the facility to act morally and
ethically is in his/her hands. What are the
stages of moral development that the human
person as a moral agent undergoes?
As previously explained, the moral agent, the human person, is a being
capable of acting “with reference to right and wrong” that is, one who is
capable of being moral, having a moral character.
Social psychologists look at the moral agent as he is, where he is. In the
society where he lives. From birth, he/she is cared, nurtured and
influenced by the world around him/her. He/she grows up in a family,
develops in a society, and thus he/she is exposed to all the do’s and don’t’s
of his/her family and his/her society. His/her moral life, his/her norms and
moral standards, are shaped by the prevalent cultural influences. In other
words, as disclosed and unveiled as he/she is, the moral agent undergoes
development.
Just as the pattern of intellectual growth can be simply described as
passing through stages of animal behavior, pre-logical thinking, thought
governed by empirical logic and finally by formal logic, so morality can
be described as passing through stages of behavior controlled first, by
taboo; then second, by law; third by conscience (i.e. irrational, intrajected
values); fourth, by reciprocity; fifth, by social consensus and finally by
personal moral principles, though not necessarily in that order.
Kohlberg's Stages of Moral
Development
Moral development refers to the “process through which a human person,
gains his/her beliefs, skills and dispositions that makes him/her morally
mature person”. Kohlberg (2013) describes the stages of moral
development in 3 stages, namely: Level 1-Preconventional morality, Leve
2- Conventional morality, and Level 3-Post-Conventional morality. Each
level has two stages each so that there are six stages of moral development
Level 1-Pre-conventional morality

This is the lowest level of moral development in Kohlberg’s theory. At the

pre-conventional level children don’t have a personal code of morality
Instead, their moral code is controlled by the standards of adults and the
consequences of following or breaking adults’ rules. Authority is outside
the individual and reasoning is based on the physical consequences of
actions There is no internalization of moral values.
Stage 1. Obedience and Punishment Orientation.

The child/individual does good in order to avoid being punished. If he/she

is punished, he she must have done wrong. Children obey because adults
tell them to obey. Moral decisions are based on fear of punishment. It is a
matter of obey or you get punished. Eg. Josef does not cheat because he
afraid of a punishment, a failing grade and “I go to school because I am
afraid to be dropped and fail.
 Stage 2: Instrumental Orientation
Right behavior is defined by whatever the individual believes to be in
his/her best interest. “What’s in it for me?” In this stage there is limited
interest in the needs of others, only to the point where it might further
the individual’s own interests. I is a matter of “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 reward by giving him a treat.
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 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. The individual is good in order to be seen as being a good person by others.
Therefore, answers relate to the approval of others. The individual values caring
and loyalty to others as a basis for moral judgments. E.g. if a politician is around in
times of calamities primarily because he wants to appear “good boy” or “good girl”
to electorates, he displays stage 3 moral developmental stage.
Stage 4. Law and Order Orientation.
The child/individual becomes aware of the wider
rules of society, so judgments concern obeying the
rules in order to uphold the law and to avoid guilt. It
is a matter of “I have to do this because the law says
so.” It is still blind obedience to the law so morality
still lacks internalization. “It is the right thing to do;
“school rules say so” as reasons for going to school
are in stage 4.
Level 3 Post-conventional Morality
This is the level of full internalization. Morality is completely internalized
and not based on external standards. Individual judgment is based on self-
chosen principles and moral reasoning is based on individual nights and
justice. According to Kohlberg this level of moral reasoning is as far as
most people get.
Stage 5. Social contract orientation
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. In this level, individuals
reason out that values, rights and principles transcend the law.

Laws are regarded as social contracts rather than rigid orders. Those that
do not promote the general welfare should be changed when necessary to
meet the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
Stage 6. Universal, ethical, principle
orientation.
Individuals at this stage have developed their own set of moral guidelines which may
or may not fit the law. They have developed moral judgements that are based on
universal human rights. 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. When faced with a dilemma
between law and scene, the person follows his conscience. Kohlberg doubted few
people reached this stage. (McLeod, 2013)
Development of conscience-based moral decision

Moral development includes development of conscience-based moral

decision. This is in the post-conventional level of Kohlberg’s stages of
moral development. Panizo defines conscience as “an act of the practical
Judgment of reason deciding upon an individual action as good and to be
performed and as evil and to be avoided.”
Development of conscience-based moral decision

It is metaphorically referred to as the “inner or little voice of God.” Panizo

(1964) quotes St. Thomas regarding the obligatory force of conscience:
“Every conscience, whether right or erroneous , whether with regard to
acts which are evil in themselves or acts which are indifferent, is
obligatory, so that he who acts in opposition to his conscience, does
wrong.”
 Rev. Thomas V. Berg, (2012) defines conscience as follows:
in the NL (natural law) tradition, conscience is understood to be a
judgment emanating from human reason about choices and actions to be
made, or accomplished, or already opted for and performed.
Aquinas held that conscience, in the strict sense, was as an act of human
reason-called a judgment-following upon, and concluding, a time of
deliberation. In this sense, conscience is the interior resounding of reason.
Conscience is reason's awareness of a choice, or an action's harmony or
disharmony, with the kind of behavior which truly leads to our genuine
well-being, and flourishing.
The formation of conscience
First, conscience formation begins with the deep-seated decision to seek
moral truth. One adopts, as a way of life, the habit of seeking out answers
to questions about right and wrong. Persevering in that quest until one
arrives at a state of moral certainty, after having made the most reasonable
effort possible to arrive at those answers. Second, a sound conscience must
stand on the firm foundation of integrity, sincerity and forthrightness.
Duplicity, personal inconsistency and dishonesty undermine any hope of
forming a properly functioning conscience. Third, conscience formation is
sustained by the habit of consistently educating oneself by exposure to
objective moral norms and the rationale behind those norms.
Conscience needs a guide…. The Church’s moral teaching, while certainly
enlightened by divinely revealed law, is, at its core, the application of what
this tradition has discovered over the centuries about the kinds of behavior
that lead us to live genuinely fulfilling, human lives. You do not place
yourself at odds with such a tradition lightly.
Consequently, conscience formation requires a habit of on- going self-
formation (what we might call moral information gathering) through
study, reading, and other types of inquiry. This includes consultation with
persons whose moral judgment we know to be sound and in accord with
the Church’s moral tradition.
Finally, conscience, if it is to be correct, needs the assistance of the virtue
of prudence. By “prudence, “we mean the virtue as understood within the
NL (natural law) tradition. This should not be confused with timidity,
“covering one’s back”or dissimulation (hiding the truth). Berg, 2012.
It may be added, as clarified In Fr. Vitaliano Gorospe (1974), that getting
to the highest-level, conscience-based moral decision can mean the
widening human consciousness. It is a growth or development from family
consciousness to clan consciousness, community consciousness, town
consciousness, provincial, regional, national, and international or global
consciousness. As one’s consciousness widens, the moral parameters or
standards of one's decision making widens, one's moral conscience
widens, one matures.
 CHAPTER 3: HUMAN ACT
Lesson 1 : The meaning of Human act
 Intended Learning Outcomes
• Explain the meaning of human act, the
morality and accountability of human act
Act of Man versus Human Act
- Fr. Coppens, (2017) “(h)uman acts are those
of which a man is master, which he has the
power of doing or not doing as he pleases.”
In the words of Panizo, (1964) “(h)uman acts
are those acts which proceed from man as a
rational being.”
Observing prescribed diet, tutoring the slow learners and preparing for
board exams are examples of human acts. In other words, human acts are
the acts of a moral agent. Hence, “actions committed by unconscious and
insane persons, infants, or by those who are physically forced to do
something, are not considered as human acts but acts of man.” Likewise,
“actions which merely happen in the body or through the body without the
awareness of the mind or the control of the will are not human acts but
merely acts of man.” Examples of acts of man are breathing, blinking of
the eyes, dilation of pupil of the eye, perspiring and jerking of the knee.
The Determinants of the Morality of Human Act
For an act to be morally good, all three determinants must be without a flaw,
according to the received axiom: "Bonum ex integra causa, malum ex quocumque
defectu" -- "A thing to be good must be wholly so; it is not vitiated by any defect.”

The object of an act is the thing done. In reality, it is not distinct from the act itself;
for we cannot act without doing something, and that thing that is done is the object
of the act; say, of going, eating, praising, etc. The act or object may be viewed as
containing a further specification – e. g., going to church, praising God, eating
meat.
For an Now, an act thus specified may, when considered in itself, be good, bad, or
indifferent; thus, to praise God is good in itself, to blaspheme is bad in itself, and to
eat meat in is itself an indifferent act. But for an individual human act to be good,
its object, whether considered in itself or as further specified, must be free from all
defect, it must be good, or at least indifferent.
The end, or purpose intended by the agent is the second determinant of an act's
morality. The end here spoken of is not the end of the work, for that pertains to the
object, but the end of the workman or agent. No matter how good the object of an
act may be, if the end intended is bad, the act is thereby vitiated, spoiled or
impaired. Thus, to praise God is good in itself, but, if in so acting the intention
would be to play the hypocrite, the act is morally bad. This holds true whether the
vicious end is the nearest, remote or last end; whether it be actually or only virtually
intended.
The circumstances of time, place and persons have their part in determining the
morality of an individual act. The moral character of an act may be so affected by
attendant circumstances, that an act good in itself may be evil when accompanied
by certain circumstances; for instance, it is good to give drink to the thirsty, but if
the thirsty man is morally weak, and the drink is intoxicating, the act may be evil.
(Coppens, 2017)
THANK YOU
SO MUCH