MORAL AGENT: CULTURE AND MORAL BEHAVIOR,
CULTURAL RELATIVISM
MORALITY AND HUMAN EXISTENCE
There is morality only in the context of humanity. There
is no morality outside the context of humanity. In
simple terms, we say there is morality because there is
man.
MAN IS THE ONLY MORAL AGENT
A. MAN IS BEING OF ACTION
 Man acts and knows his acts. Because he knows
his acts, he knows he is responsible for his
actions.
 FOUR POSTULATES OF ACTIONS IN ETHICS:
1. There are actions which are right or wrong,
and good or bad.
2. There are actions which man is obligated and
not obligated to do.
3. Man is responsible for his actions.
4. Right actions are rewardable and wrong
actions punishable.
B. MAN HAS INTELLECT
 His intellects enables him to know what is right
or wrong and good or bad actions. Because he is
capable of knowing, he is therefore mandated
to face the consequences of his actions. Thus,
the morality of human acts can be applied only
to those who have the knowledge of right or
wrong and good or bad actions.
C. MAN HAS WILL
 Man is free to act or not to act. Man’s will
equips man with the power to choose either
good or bad and right or wrong actions. It is the
will that enables him to enjoy freedom to act or
not to act and freedom to choose what course
of action to perform.
RATIONAL BEING IS THE ONLY MORAL AGENT
 Brutes do acquire knowledge through the
senses. Their senses, undoubtedly, are their
indispensable medium of knowledge. As an
animal, man also acquires knowledge through
his senses.
 By appetency, we mean the drive to seek or to
strive for something. Brutes are driven to seek
for something out of their instincts.
 Instincts are natural biological drives of animals.
Thus man, being an animal is also subject of
these drives.
 It is in this context that man is to be understood
as a MORAL BEING or a MORAL AGENT. It is
man's being rational that makes him a unique
grade of animal.
 Being rational, man’s knowledge does not stop
in the senses since his sensual knowledge
(perception) is further processed by his intellect
in the form of abstraction.
 As RATIONAL ANIMAL, man strives for
something not only through his instincts, but
also through his WILL. It is true that man has
instinctive drives, but man can transcend all his
drives into a higher dimension. Man is therefore
capable of injecting a dose of discipline to his
physiological drives because he has intellect and
will.
INTELLECT AND WILL
 INTELLECT AND WILL ARE CORRELATIVE FACULTIES
THAT ARE INTRINSICALLY ENDOWED IN MAN AS THE
MORAL AGENT.
 TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
TWO, LET'S CONSIDER ANOTHER DIAGRAM:
 Because man is a moral being, man possesses
intellect and will. Through his intellect, man
knows and can know right or wrong actions.
 Through his will man can choose between
good or bad actions.
 Man's intellect makes him capable of
understanding right or wrong actions; his will
make him capable of doing his choice, either
good or bad actions.
 Man's intellect enables him to search for
truth while his will, for good.
 When man is in possession of truth, then, he
can practice what he knows (wisdom) while his
exercise of good makes him virtous (Roman's
"vir" which means "man,") thus, the term virtus
means "what is proper to man.“ (Pagpapakatao)
 Man is will-bound to choose what is right and
what is good - which is the moral imperative
demanded in ethics.
 However, whether or not man should choose
what is wrong or what is bad, he still remains a
moral being since he has freedom.

TRAINING OF THE INTELLECT
• To seek the purpose and time end of life
• To grasp universal truths
• To understand and reason out truths and moral
precepts and relate them to life
• To make judgements based on an objective standard
of morality
• To analyze the cause and effect of decisions and
behaviour
• To solve problems critically and rationally
FORMATION OF THE WILL
• To love the Supreme Being and neighbour
• To choose the higher good/universal truths and moral
values
• To act upon a decision
• To take the rational and logical consequences of a
decision and act
• To make responsible use of freedom
• To exercise self-discipline and control the emotions
• To persevere, sustain and commit
• To change and improve
• To practice virtues and good moral habits
WHY SHOULD MAN BE MORAL? MANUEL B. DY, JR.
 “Morality does not simply mean choosing to live
rationally according to the demands of his
rational nature. For if so, then the good would
tend to become a purely facultative or optional
choice.” – ARISTOTLE
 “The imperative would be purely hypothetical-if
you want to be happy, if you want to achieve
yourself, then you must live in accordance with
your rational nature. It may be dumb, or
uncouth, or unbecoming, thus irrational, for a
man not to choose the rational good.” –
IMMANUEL KANT
 “It would seem, however, that there is more to
being moral than just living rationally, or living
sanely if man wants to attain his end. To be
moral is to live up to an absolute obligation, to
do good under absolute obligation. To be good
or to be bad then are not even alternatives
equally open to man. Man is unconditionally,
absolutely oriented to the good. In moral
experience, we seem to experience being
subject to an obligation that does not stem
merely from rational exigency immanent in our
rational nature. In the experience of moral
obligation, we seem to experience being bound
by some order of transcendence. In this lies the
inviolable nature of conscience, insofar as it
signifies not merely an orientation to a
rationally demanded end, but openness to a
certain absolute dimension. Herein lies the
worth and dignity of the human person.”
THREE MAIN POSITIONS OF MAN SHOULD BE MORAL
1. SOCIO-PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY (PSYCHO-SOCIAL
THEORY IN OLD EDITION)
 The ultimate ground of morality is social reality
or social phenomenon manifested in customary
laws and common language. This theory asserts
that individual and society are interlinked. This
means, an individual strives to meet the needs
of the society and the society helps him to
attain his goals. Through this interaction, the
personality or morality of an individual is
determined. To the question, why be moral, the
answer of the sociological theory is the
maintenance of the communal life. To be
immoral is to contravene the communal life
itself.
2. HUMANISTIC THEORY (IMMANENTIST THEORY IN
THE OLD EDITION)
 For this theory, “the ultimate ground and
foundation of morality is the human person
itself, its intrinsic worth and dignity as a rational
and free being”. The foremost exponent of this
theory is Immanuel Kant who ‘envisions that
the ultimate telos of morality would be the full
realization of the worth and dignity of the
human person as reason and freedom,
something however that could be attained
within the lifespan of the individual person, but
only some far distant future “kingdom of ends,”
signifying a world of justice and freedom, where
every man and woman shall finally be
recognized and respected in his/her dignity as a
rational free being”.
 To the question why be moral, the answer of
this theory is to become true to oneself as a
person in solidarity with the rest of humanity for
the realization of the “kingdom of ends”. To be
immoral is to betray oneself and all humanity,
“to forego one’s birth right shared with the rest
 of mankind, namely one’s intrinsic worth and
dignity as reason and freedom.”
3. TRANSCENDENTALIST POSITION (TRANSCENDENT
THEORY IN THE OLD EDITION)
 A radical change in the term in the new edition
as “position” and not “theory’ because “there is
never a claim to have a clear view or
understanding of that which admittedly lies
beyond the purely human.” While the
transcendentalist agrees with the humanistic
theory that morality is essentially about the
worth and dignity of the human person, it holds
that the ground of this worth and dignity is
beyond the human person, a Transcendent, an
“Other” that remains hidden “never manifesting
itself quite clearly, except perhaps as a trace, as
intimation, now and then.”
 The human being is not a self-sufficient, self-
possessed being. His/her beginning lies
somewhere outside of himself/herself, and
his/her whole existence is a two-pronged search
for meaning and for love, but given all the
infirmities, weakness and the mortality of
human existence, this search can be fulfilled by
something/someone beyond himself/herself.
 To be moral is still to follow one’s conscience
but conscience here is no longer the self-
sufficient and autonomous but “conscience that
feels itself oriented toward and feels itself
beholden to something “Other’. To the
question, why be moral, the Transcendentalist
position would answer that “the human spirit’s
own restless search for truth and for true love
seems to lead on and on toward that which
dwells yonder.”
THE DEVELOPMENT OF MORAL CHARACTER
Character
• It is a personality trait or disposition that has become
habituated in the individual moral agent.
• It is the mental and moral qualities distinctive to an
individual.
• It is a person's good reputation.
MORAL CHARACTER
• A moral character is defined as an idea in which one is
unique and can be distinguished from others.
• Perhaps it can assemble qualities and traits that are
different from various individuals.
• It implies to how individuals act, or how they express
themselves. In another words, it is “human excellence,”
or unique thoughts of a character.
• Moral Character is the force behind Moral Action.
CULTURAL RELATIVISM
 Cultural relativism is the view that moral or
ethical systems, which vary from culture to
culture, are all equally valid and no one system
is really “better” than any other. This is based
on the idea that there is no ultimate standard of
good or evil, so every judgment about right and
wrong is a product of society. Therefore, any
opinion on morality or ethics is subject to the
cultural perspective of each person. Ultimately,
this means that no moral or ethical system can
be considered the “best,” or “worst,” and no
particular moral or ethical position can actually
be considered “right” or “wrong.”
 Anthropologists point to a range of practices
considered morally acceptable in some societies
but condemned in others, including infanticide,
genocide, polygamy, racism, sexism, and
torture. Such differences may lead us to
question whether there are any universal moral
principles or whether morality is merely a
matter of "cultural taste." Differences in moral
practices across cultures raise an important
issue in ethics -- the concept of "ethical
relativism."
 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.
Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development
 Lawrence Kohlberg, the American Psychologist
grouped together children while they were
still small and did a study on the moral
development of the people in a span of about
twenty years. He was interested in the
 justification or reasoning behind the right
behaviour of the group and was able to
identify six stages of development.
Stages of Moral Development
I. Preconventional
a. Stage 1
b. Stage 2
II. Conventional
a. Stage 3
b. Stage 4
III. Postconventional
a. Stage 5
b. Stage 6
I. Pre-conventional Morality Level(Self-
Focused )
 At the pre-conventional level, (most 9 y.o. and
younger, some over 9 y.o.), we don’t have a
personal code of morality. Instead, our moral
code is shaped by the standards of adults and
the consequences of following or breaking
their rules.
 Authority is outside the individual and
reasoning is based on the physical
consequences of actions.
 Concerned with concrete consequences
individuals, focusing on pursuing concrete
interest, while avoiding sanctions.
Stage 1: Punishment; Authority Orientation or
Obedience and Punishment Orientation
 Obey or Pay
 Authority- Fear
 The child/individual is good in order to avoid
being punished. If a person is punished, they
must have done wrong.
 What is right is to obey the rules, avoid
physical damage to persons and property. The
reason is that one wants to avoid punishment.
Also, there is the deference to power and
position. In relation to social perspective, what
is considered is simply one’s own interest as
there is still no sense of another’s point of
view.
Stage 2: Pleasure Orientation or Individualism and
Exchange / Instrumental Purposive Orientation
 Self-satisfaction
 “What’s in it for me?”
 At this stage, children recognize that there is
not just one right view that is handed down by
the authorities. Different individuals have
different viewpoints.
 What is right is one’s own immediate interest,
and letting others act also in their own interest.
Thus, each to his own. What is right is what is
fair. You do your thing, I do my thing; we have
fair, equal exchange.
 The reason for this is instrumental; to satisfy
one’s need and admit the needs of others in
their own self-interest. While the other is after
his/her own interest, I too have my own
interest. And if I do what is wrong, I might not
obtain my own interest. Human relations are
seen as a market place, a place of exchange.
Fairness reciprocity, equal sharing are all
interpreted in a physical, pragmatic way.
II. Conventional (Group-Focused)
 At the conventional level (most adolescents and
adults), we begin to 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. •
 Concerned with fulfilling role expectations,
maintaining and supporting the social order,
and identifying persons or groups involved in
this order.
Stage 3: Peer and Group Acceptance or Good
Interpersonal Relationships / Interpersonal
Concordance Orientation
 Approval-Group Norms
 Loyalty- Belonging
 The child/individual is good in order to be seen
as being a good person by others. Therefore,
answers relate to the approval of others.
 What is deemed right is what pleases or helps
others, what is approved by others, what
reinforces mutual relationships such as trust,
loyalty, respect, gratitude.
 The reason for helping others, for pleasing
others, for doing what is conventional or what is
mutually good for everyone is need to be seen
by the self and others as a loyal, caring person
(important here is my image to others), the
desire to maintain rules and authority that
support your typical good behavior and living up
to what significant others expect.
 In relation to social the perspective, one takes
the third person perspective where one knows
how the group will react, is aware of shared
feelings, agreements, groups expectations that
take primacy over individual interest.
Stage 4: Legalistic Orientation or Maintaining the
Social Order / Social Structure Orientation
 Law and Order
 Duty to Society
 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.
 What is right is doing one’s duty; showing
respects for laws, authority and society and
contributing to the maintenance of society and
institutions. One’s reason for doing one’s duty
and the like is that, action which breaks the
social or moral agreements impairs the system
which is a value. It would be hazardous to
digress from conformity, form social norms.
 One reason for this is that conscience is
imperative to the moral law, to the ethical
system. Another reason is the maintenance of
the system for its own sake. The social
perspective takes the perspective of a
generalized other and not just the personal
other. The generalized other is the institution,
the society or the church. One sees a given
social issue from the perspective of a fixed
system of laws and beliefs.
III. Post-Conventional (Universal-Focused)
 Individual judgment is based on self-chosen
principles, and moral reasoning is based on
individual rights and justice. According to Kohlberg
this level of moral reasoning is as far as most people
get.
 Only 10-15% are capable of the kind of abstract
thinking necessary for stage 5 or 6 (postconventional
morality). That is to say, most people take their
moral views from those around them and only a
minority think through ethical principles for
themselves.
 Here, one is concerned that obligations be based on
calculations of overall utility, what is really good for
all. To a certain extent, there is universality in this
good but still within basic human society, basic
human agreements.
Stage 5: Common Good or Social Contract and Individual
Rights
 Standards of Society
 Social Contract
 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. For example, in
Heinz’s dilemma, the protection of life is more
important than breaking the law against stealing.
 The social perspective here views the rights of each
as best protected when stability governs relations,
when one recognizes that moral and legal
perspectives sometimes differ and thus one may
question the legal, because it may not be moral.
 Moral principles defined apart from authority of
persons; can challenge laws based on rationality.
 Good of the many- consensus rather than majority
rules.
 “Awareness of relativism of personal values thus
deference to procedural rules for reaching
consensus.”
 Laws can be changed, social utility more important.
 Personal freedom and common good distinguished.
 Individual rights can be subsumed to common good.
Stage 6: Universal Principles
 Decision of Conscience
 Logical Moral
 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
reached this stage.
 Kohlberg was not able to observe this stage in his
group, and thus he projected it. What is right is
following self-chosen ethical principles based on
judgments that are universalizable, irreversible, and
consistent.
 What is right are the universal principles of justice,
and the reasons given are the validity of universal
moral principles and the sense of personal
commitment to these principles.
 The social perspective taken is the moral point of
view from which even the social arrangements are
derived; from this universalizable moral point of
view, moral judgments are made.
 Self-chosen principles.
 Principle measured in terms of logical rationality,
consistency and universality.
 Concerned with dignity of others
 Though of as an ideal, aspirational stage.
 Decisions based on conscience.
 Conscience a “direct line” to righteousness, or God,
not requiring thought.
 In the image and likeness of God.
 It is also a judgment of reason.