MRAVNÁ VÝCHOVA V ŠKOLÁCH NA SLOVENSKU A V ZAHRANI ČÍ

1.3. Reflective kind of moral agent and his level of moral thinking
These P4C and CI methods and experience can contribute to formation and development of moral
thinking, not only of moral feeling and acting among children and youth, as it is implemented in the
current model of ethical education. Secondary schools students are almost adult or they are adult
young people and thus we should focus, as far as it is possible, on formation of mature moral agents
capable of more demanding intellectual activity in form of moral reasoning and thinking
corresponding with the reflective kind of moral agent. 1 I derive the definition of the reflective kind of
moral agent from two primary sources: the psychological concept of personality kinds by Robin R.
Vallacher and Daniel M. Wegner (1989) and the levels of moral thinking by Richard M. Hare (1981).
In Vallacher and Wegner´s concept there are two kinds of agents: the low-level agent (LLA) primarily
operating in the world on the level of details and the high-level agent (HLA) acting in terms of causal
consequences, social meanings and self-descriptive implications. Given agent tries to control his
actions considering the consequence. The HLA are people who manage to do much of their behaviour
focusing on more significant aspects of their actions. On the contrary, the LLA often participate in
activities, which they view as less significant. Furthermore, on the basis of empiric research the
authors claim that the LLA are more impulsive, less motivated, and less consistent in their long term
behaviour. The LLA consciously deal more with details of their actions. The HLA focus more on the
meaning of their actions, which enables them to select personally the kind of action from the point of
view of its significance given by its context. They are individuals who consider their actions in terms
of consequences and implications. This enables consistency and stability of their actions in contrast to
the LLA. The HLA incline less to opportunist criminal actions. One of the basic differences between
the two kinds of the subject lies in the fact that in connection with their actions the LLA answer the
question how, while the HLA answer the question why (Vallacher-Wegner, 1989, s. 660-671). 2
Richard M. Hare primarily considers two levels of moral thinking: intuitive and critical. On the level
of the intuitive thinking there are relatively simple principles of acting, when we learn to behave
morally. He is of the opinion that although these relatively simple principles used on the level of
intuitive thinking are desirable for human moral thinking, they are not sufficient. There is little
probability that all aspects of a new situation will be similar to a previous situation and then it is
questionable whether the differences are relevant for its moral or other assessment. If these differences
are relevant, then the principles that we acquired in the past are not suitable for the new situation. Most
frequently it is objected to the intuitive level of moral thinking that it is not capable of answering
adequately to the conflict of the principles, i.e. it is not capable of solving more complicated moral
issues. In such case, according to Hare, we need a non-intuitive way of thinking. Intuitions that cause
the establishment of the conflict are products of our education and past experience. According to Hare,
principles of the intuitive thinking are not sufficient and thus we should always ask whether the
education based on these principles is the best we could get or whether the past decisions were right or
whether the principles postulated on their basis could be correctly applied to a new situation. Critical
thinking tries, according to him, to select the best net of “prima facie” principles for application in
intuitive thinking. Except for this, the role of critical thinking is to solve the conflicts between these
principles. It can lead to improvement of the principles, although it is not necessary, or it can replace a
principle with another principle. The best net of principles is the one that accepts actions, dispositions
etc. which are closest to those we should select, if we were able to apply critical thinking anytime.
Hare expresses the difference between the intuitive and the critical level of moral thinking
1 Reflective kind of moral agent speculates about the substance of moral principles, standards and values,
postulates his own principles, values and standards, which do not have to be identical with the socially accepted
ones, however, they cannot be in contradiction with the basic moral values, i.e. they have to respect and confirm
humanity and dignity of a man and his moral right. Furthermore, one of the characteristic features of the second
kind of moral agent is clear and logical thinking. Analytical thinking, which consists above all of the analysis of
a real moral situation and the possibility to execute his own moral ideals and values, which in fact correspond
with basic moral values and principles of human society, can be considered typical for his way of moral thinking
(Gluchman, 1997, s. 32-94; 2005, s. 27-88).
2 More on the analysis of the concept can be found in my work Človek a morálka (Gluchman, 1997, s. 105-106;
2005, s. 99-101).
287