FINAL-RESEARCH-ETICS.docx How Character development affects reasoning and impartiality

HOW IS MORAL CHARACTER DEVELOPED STAGES OF MORAL
DEVELOPMENT REASONS AND IMPARTIALITY AS REQUIREMENTS FOR
ETHICS
CHRISTHAN DAVE MARIN DELGADO
JERICHO MANTILE CUNANAN
DAN JACIE ROQUE CLEMENTE
GLORICEL VILORIA QUIRINO
ROCHELLE WENCESLAO ROSINAS
A Research Study
in Partial Fulfilment to the Requirements in Ethics

ABSTRACT
This study is primarily focused on how moral character developed stages of moral
development reasons and impartiality as requirements for ethics. This study determined the
relationship of an environment to an individual's development and its importance to moral
reasoning and moral judgement. It also determined if an individual relies on his moral reason and
impartiality when presented with dilemma. This study was conducted through quantitative online
survey with 30 students at Aurora State College of Technology. Participants can be selected
through the use of random sampling method. Findings showed that environments greatly affect the
development, moral judgement and moral reasoning of an individual. Meanwhile, in a dilemma
situation there's a different moral judgement and moral reason about what they think is right. This
study shows that having a good environment is important to an individual's moral development.
The character development of a person is affected by his environment. The character development
of an individual is a major factor in his moral judgement and moral reasoning. In an ideal
environment, an individual considers the right and wrongs when making a decision. In an ideal
environment, an individual considers others when making a decision. Ideally, an individual makes
his decision through moral reason and impartiality, considering the right and wrongs, and the
people affected by the decision.

INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study
How do people develop morality? This question has fascinated parents, religious leaders,
and philosophers for ages, but moral development has also become a hot-button issue in
psychology and education. Do parental or societal influences play a greater role in moral
development? Does development of moral character affects the judgement of a person? And are
feelings be on the criteria or it should only be the set “moral rules” that is necessary to consider in
terms of decision making?
It is commonly assumed that humans do not begin life with moral character or virtue. Most
documented societies through history considered infants to be unformed persons, not yet moral
members of society, “humanity-in-becoming” who have “watery souls” (Fijian) (Sahlins 2008:
101–102). This person-becoming view fits well with human sciences today, as a child’s
development is viewed as the unfolding and co-construction of a complex dynamic system. At
first, the infant is co-constructed by other complex, dynamic systems—caregivers. The personality
that is formed is very much dependent on this early formation, which is largely beyond the control
of the individual. However, over time, the individual takes on more choices about her or his own
character development within the framework of subsequent social experience and enculturation.
Many scholars and researchers tries to give explanation about a person’s stages of moral
development. However, it is Lawrence Kohlberge’s theory of moral development that is widely
used today. His work modified and expanded upon Jean Piaget's previous work but was more
centered on explaining how children develop moral reasoning. Kohlberg (1984) extended Piaget's
theory, proposing that moral development is a continual process that occurs throughout the
lifespan. His theory outlines six stages of moral development within three different levels pre-
conventional morality, conventional morality and post-conventional morality. At each level of
moral development, there are two stages. In the first stage, children obey the rules taught and
believe what society says is right. Avoiding punishment is a leading factor in their desire to obey
authority. This has diminished by stage two, where children can see that they are multiple points
of view to the matter in question. They tend to reason according their own self-interests, including
bartering with others. In stage three, people value a supportive community and therefore have the
desire to be a good, helpful member. This changes as they move into stage four, where they seek
instead to meet the goals of the society, which includes maintaining law and order. Throughout
both stages, we see how young teens value the morals and ethics of the group of which they are
part. In stage five, people evolve from the idea of being ‘good’ into what would be the right thing
to do. They seek to create morals and values for a good society instead of maintaining the society
for the sake of doing so. They take these ideas one-step further in stage six, where they work to
incorporate justice and creating a fair society for all. However, similar to how Piaget believed that

not all people reach the highest levels of cognitive development, Kohlberg believed not everyone
progresses to the highest stages of moral development.
Through the process of moral development, a person’s morality gradually form. So is his
reasons and impartiality (Kohlberg, 1984).
What is reason?
Reason is a fundamental aspect of ethical decision-making. It allows one to see the
interconnectedness of things and the logic behind the processes involved. Reasoning is useful
when the consequences are considered while understanding the issue. It is a suitable way of
knowing for ethical decisions when one does not wish to question their perception of an issue.
Ethical reasoning is the ability to reflect on moral issues in the abstract and in historical narratives
within particular traditions. While moral reasoning applies critical analysis to specific events to
determine what is right or wrong, and what people ought to do in a particular situation.
Many philosophers take it that moral reasoning is just the application of domain general-
reasoning to moral questions, and that it is conscious, intentional, and effortful (Mercier, 2011).
This view of moral reasoning was adopted by psychologists in the early stages of empirical
investigation studying the role of moral reasoning in moral judgment (Kohlberg, 1984; Piaget,
1932/1965). In the wake of more recent empirical findings, especially those pointing to some role
for nonconscious psychological processes and the emotions in moral judgment, psychologists and
philosophers have offered a number of different definitions of moral reasoning. For example,
Bucciarelli et al. define reasoning as, “any systematic mental process that constructs or evaluates
implications from premises of some sort” (Saunders, 2015), and moral reasoning as reasoning that
involves “deontic propositions” as premises, which are propositions that “concern what you may,
should, and should not do or else leave undone” (p. 124). More importantly, moral reasoning can
be either an intentional and conscious process or a non-intentional and nonconscious process so
long as the process (conscious or nonconscious) is systematic in the right kind of way; a clear
departure from the view that moral reasoning is always a conscious process.
Greene takes a different approach, and defines moral reasoning (or “cognition” in his
terminology) behaviorally, by contrasting the behavioral effects of reason with the behavioral
effects of emotions (Greene, 2008). On his view, “‘cognitive’ representations are inherently neutral
representations, ones that do not automatically trigger particular behavioral responses or
dispositions, while ‘emotional’ representations do have such automatic effects, and are therefore
behaviorally valenced” (Greene, 2008). Greene further elaborates that cognition is for “reasoning,
planning, manipulating information in working memory, controlling impulses, and ‘higher
executive functions’ more generally,” whereas emotions are “subserved by processes that in
addition to be valenced, are quick and automatic, though not necessarily conscious”.

There are other theorists who do not provide a definition of moral reasoning, per se, but
rather employ more general characterizations of it throughout their arguments, though these
characterizations often reveal certain assumptions with respect to what they take moral reasoning
to be. Prinz, for example, characterizes moral reasoning as necessarily involving the manipulation
of “affect free” propositional attitudes (Prinz, 2007), or as simply “dispassionate” (Prinz, 2006,
pp. 37-40) without attempting to define what dispassionate process(es) constitutes moral
reasoning. However, it seems as though Prinz is assuming that moral reasoning just is domain-
general reasoning, and that domain-general reasoning necessarily involves manipulating “affect
free” propositional attitudes, namely, beliefs, in a dispassionate manner. Others, however,
characterize moral reasoning as a metacognitive process of some sort. Craigie (2011), for example,
characterizes moral reasoning as an effortful, reflective, metacognitive process that can endorse or
overturn moral intuitions, and Kennett & Fine (2009) similarly characterize moral reasoning as “a
capacity for reflective shaping and endorsement of moral judgments” (p. 77).
What is impartiality?
Impartiality is the quality of being fair, unbiased, and not favoring one side or viewpoint
over another. It involves making judgment or decisions based solely on objective criteria and
without personal feelings, preferences, or prejudices influencing the process. It is also a principle
of justice that holds that decisions should be based on objective criteria, rather than on the basis of
bias prejudice, preferring the benefit to one person over another for improper reasons.
Scholars view impartiality as a necessary component of moral obligation. According to
Bentham and Mill, the happiness of all person is to be weighed in judgements of the rightness of
action, with each individual counting as more than one. Henry Sidgwick claims that “The good of
any one individual is of no more importance than the good of any other” (1907, 382). Peter Singer
writes “We (must) give equal weight in our moral deliberations to the like interests of all those
affected by our action” (1971, 197). Kurt Baier writes “Moral rules must be for the good of
everyone alike” (1958, 200). While, John Rawls writes “Responding to the interests of each person
in the same way, an impartial spectator gives free reign to his capacity for sympathetic
identification by viewing each person’s situation as it affects that person”(1971, 196).
In moral theories, impartiality features prominently in both Act and Rule
Consequentialism, Kantian ethics, the Humean general point of view, and Ideal Observer theory.
In political theory, impartiality is usually connected with justice and a commitment to equality.
The connection of impartiality with moral and political theories is clear. In the personal realm,
impartiality directs an agent not to act selfishly or unfairly toward others. In the political realm,
impartiality requires that the structure of society and its institutions to not be rigged, for morally
irrelevant reasons, to favor some groups over others by giving them benefits and opportunities that
are not open to all.

Relationship of Feelings and Reason in Ethics.
Reasons and emotion are jointly at work and tightly intertwined. This means that feelings
are used as instinctive response to moral dilemmas. Feelings may sometimes prohibit us to makes
right decisions but it can also be used in making the right one.
According to Ells (2014), emotion is a response to stimuli based on past experiences which
is made instinctively while reason is a form of a personal justification which changes from person
to person based on their own ethical and moral code, as well as prior experience. Some ethicists
believe that ethics is also a matter of emotion. They hold the moral judgement as they are even
deemed by some as instinctive and trained response to moral dillemas (De Guzman et al. 2017).
Emotion is the result of logical analysis through which we first analyse someone’s behaviour,
make an appropriate judgement, and then feel whichever is called for, respect or contept (Pillemer
&Wheeler, 2010)
Researchers (and some philosophers) now see emotion and reason as tightly intertwined.
Emotion and reason are jointly at work when we judge the conduct of others or make choices
ourselves. A cognitive deficit of either type can impair our decision-making capacity about all
manner of things, including moral judgement. People who suffer certain kinds of brain injuries or
lesions, for example, retain the intellectual ability to understand alternative courses of action,
nevertheless, are unable to make up their own minds, both literally and figuratively. Reading a
menu apparently is one thing, but choosing among items involves weighing likes, dislike,
objectives, and values. These necessarily involves subjective judgements (Pillemer & Wheeler,
2010).
Some hold that reason and emotion are not opposite. Both abstract inference and emotional
intuition or instincts are seen as having relative roles in ethical thinking. For one thing, feelings or
emotions are judgements about the accomplishment of one’s goals. Emotion can be rational in
having basis, at least sometimes on good judgements about how well a circumstances or agent
accomplishes appropriate objectives. Feelings are also visceral or instinctual by providing
motivations to act morally (De Guzman et al. 2017).
Reasons when removed from emotion, allows a person to make conscious decisions based
on fact, with no references to personal involvement. The use of reason as a way of knowing, allows
the knower to see the consequences of their action throughout the decision-making process. In
addition, there are limitations to decisions made based on reason alone, perception of the situation
is not questioned as it may be with emotional decisions (Ells, 2014).
Reasons and impartiality, the minimum requirement for ethics.
Reason and impartiality are minimum requirements for ethics. Moral judgement require
backing by reasons, and reason commends what is commends, regardless of our feelings, attitudes,

opinions, and desires. Impartiality involves the idea that each individual’s interests and point of
view are equally important.
What, then, is ethics? Ethics is two things. First, ethics refers to well-founded standards of
right and wrong that prescribe what humans ought to do, usually in terms of rights, obligations,
benefits to society, fairness, or specific virtues. Ethics, for example, refers to those standards that
impose the reasonable obligations to refrain from rape, stealing, murder, assault, slander, and
fraud. Ethical standards also include those that enjoin virtues of honesty, compassion, and loyalty.
Ethical standards include standards relating to rights, such as the right to life, the right to freedom
from injury, and the right to privacy. Such standards are adequate standards of ethics because they
are supported by consistent and well-founded reasons. Secondly, ethics refers to the study and
development of one's ethical standards. As mentioned above, feelings, laws, and social norms can
deviate from what is ethical. So it is necessary to constantly examine one's standards to ensure that
they are reasonable and well-founded. Ethics also means, then, the continuous effort of studying
our own moral beliefs and our moral conduct, and striving to ensure that we, and the institutions
we help to shape, live up to standards that are reasonable and solidly-based ( Velasquez et al.
2013).
Purpose of the Study
In light to this, the purpose of this study is to determine the relationship of an individual’s
environment during his development and its importance to moral reasoning and moral judgement.
Moreover, it aims to determine if an individual relies on his moral reason and impartiality, with
relation to his development, when presented with dilemma.
Statement of the Problem
Generally, this research study aims to determine the effects of moral character developed
stages of moral development, reasons, and impartiality as requirements for ethics. This study is
based on the answers of randomly selected adolescent students of Aurora State College of
Technology. Specifically, it sought to answer the following questions:
1. How does environment affect the moral development of a person?
2. Does a person’s character development be of importance to his moral judgement and moral
reasoning?
3. Does a person make his decision through moral reason and impartiality when presented with
dilemma?

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This research study explains the relationship of an individual’s environment during his
development and its importance to moral reasoning and moral judgement while it aims to
determine if an individual relies on his moral reason and impartiality, with relation to his
development, when presented with dilemma. To fulfil the aim of this study the researchers used
qualitative research design. According to Bhandari (2020) qualitative research involves collecting
and analysing non-numerical data (e.g., text, video, or audio) to understand concepts, opinions, or
experiences. It can be used to gather in-depth insights into a problem or generate new ideas for
research. The researchers used an online medium to conduct a survey on 30 adolescent students
from Aurora State College of Technology that were selected randomly. The researchers formulated
questions that aims to assess the environment from which the respondents grew up in, how it
affected the development of their character, and their relation to the decision making, reason and
impartiality as minimum requirements of ethics. The researchers used the answers gathered from
the respondents to answer and explain the problem of the study and in doing so, accomplishing the
purpose.
PARTICIPANTS
Random sampling was used in selecting the respondents on this survey. Random sampling
is a type of probability sampling in which the researcher randomly selects a subset of participants
from a population. Each member of the population has an equal chance of being selected. Data is
then collected from as large a percentage as possible of this random subset used to make statistical
inferences about a population. It helps ensure high internal validity: randomization is the best
method to reduce the impact of potential confounding variables.
ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
The questionnaires and the answers of the respondents are confidential. The researches
assured that no other parties were allowed to view the questions as well as the answers of the
respondents. The researchers made sure that the questions were as straightforward and as easy to
comprehend as follows and this proved to be true because no questions were received from the
respondents, given that they were instructed to ask the researchers if they had any questions or
clarifications.

DATA PRESENTATION
The collection of data, from the selection of the research design, the selection of sampling
method, the formulation of survey questionnaires, and the treatment of answers were conducted as
follows. The data is presented in tabular form, one of the simplest methods used to analyze the
data and to display the data is in tabular form. In the tabular form, you get a systematic arrangement
of rows and columns. It is usually seen that the first column is used to indicate the titles and the
first row is also used to indicate the same.
INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT
 Environment
where an
individual
developed.
 Character
development
of an
individual.
 Moral
judgement
and reason.
 Random
sampling of
respondents.
 Online
survey.
 The relationship
of an individual’s
environment
during his
development and
its importance to
moral reasoning
and moral
judgement.
 Determine if an
individual relies
on his moral
reason and
impartiality, with
relation to his
development,
when presented
with dilemma.

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
This chapter highlights the presentation, analysis, and interpretation of the data gathered.
Table 1.1 Frequencies and percentages of the college student ages’
Age
f
(%)
R
22
5
(16.67)
3
21
12
(40)
1
20
10
(33.3)
2
19
3
(10)
4
Total
30
(100)
Table 1.1 shows the frequency and percentage of the college students’ ages reveals that
among the 30 respondents, that among the 30 respondents, 40% of students have ages 21 which
ranked first. There are 10 students who have ages 20 representing 33.3% which ranked second.
There are 5 students who have ages 22 representing 16.67% of the population which ranked third.
And finally, 10% of the students have ages 19 which ranked fourth.

Table 2.1 Frequencies and percentages on the items on the affects moral development of a
person
How is moral character developed stages of moral
development reasons and impartiality as requirements
for ethics
Yes No Total
f
(%)
f
(%)
f
(%)
1. Do you agree that the environment affect a person's
perspective of good or bad?
30
(100)
0
(0)
30
(100)
2. Would you say that you grew up in a chaotic
environment?
19
(63.33)
11
(36.67)
30
(100)
3. Would you say that you grew up in a healthy
environment?
20
(66.67)
10
(33.33)
30
(100)
As seen in the table 2.1, in question no. 1 100% agreed that the environment affect a
person’s perspective of good or bad. In question no. 2, it was discovered that 63.33% of the
respondents grew up in a chaotic environment and the 36.67% did not. In question no. 3, it was
found out that 66.67% of the respondents grew up in a healthy environment while the 33.33% did
not.

Table 2.2 Frequencies and percentages on the items that assess the respondents’ character
development and its importance to his moral judgement and moral reasoning
development reasons and impartiality as
requirements for ethics
Yes No Total
f
(%)
f
(%)
f
(%)
4. Would you say that you developed to be a good
person?
26
(86.67)
4
(13.33)
30
(100)
5. Are you still developing/growing as a person?
27
(90)
3
(10)
30
(100)
6. Do you consider the rights and wrongs before
making a decision?
30
(100)
0
(0)
30
(100)
7. Do you consider others when making a decision?
26
(86.67)
4
(13.33)
30
(100)
8. Does our relationship with other people affect our
decision making? Especially on times that it
involves them?
27
(90)
3
(10)
30
(100)
As seen in the table 2.2, in question no. 4, 86.67% of the respondents answered that they
developed to be a good person and 13.33% did not. In question no. 5, 90% of the respondents
agreed that they are still developing/growing as a person and 10% answered that they are not. In
question no. 6, it was found out that 100% of the respondents consider the right and wrongs before
making a decision. In question no. 7, it was discovered that 86.67% of the respondents consider
others when making a decision and 13.33% do not. In question no. 8, it can be seen that 90% of
the respondents let their relationship with other people affect their decision making and 10% do
not.

Table 2.3 Frequencies and percentages on the items that assess if the respondents make
decisions through moral reason and impartiality when presented with dilemmas
development reasons and impartiality as
requirements for ethics
Yes No Total
f
(%)
f
(%)
f
(%)
9. Suppose you are taking an examination you did not
prepare for, you have no idea how to solve the
problems and answer the questions. Your
classmate gave you a paper with the answers to the
problems and questions. Are you going to copy it?
16
(53.33)
14
(46.67)
30
(100)
10. Before taking an exam, you were instructed by
your instructor that cheating is prohibited and will
automatically mean failure. In addition, if you saw
someone cheating and is able to tell the instructor,
you will automatically pass. While taking the
exam, you saw your close friend openly cheating,
will you tell your instructor?
9
(30)
21
(70)
30
(100)
11. During rush hour, you are crossing a busy street on
the pedestrian lane. You get on the other side of the
road but you notice that an old lady is still slowly
walking across. You look at the stop sign and it is
almost at 0. Would you go back and help the old
lady cross the street?
27
(90)
3
(10)
30
(100)
12. Assume you are in a situation where your Mother
is furious because one of your siblings broke her
most treasured vase. You witnessed the accident
and you are being asked by your Mother to tell her
who broke the vase. Before being asked by your
Mother, your older sister, the one who caused the
accident, told you that if you tell on her, she will
tell your mother about your secrets. Knowing full
well that if your older sister reveal your secrets,
you will get scolded and your Mother will be mad
at you, would you tell your Mother that it was your
older sister who broke the vase?
20
(66.67)
10
(33.33)
30
(100)

13. Your father is a hardworking man who provides
for your family. However, one afternoon, you
came home and saw your Mother with bruises on
her face and body, and you saw your Father on the
other side of the room. You found out later that
your Father caught your Mother cheating and that
was the result of his reaction. Would you tell the
authorities about what happened?
19
(63.33)
11
(36.67)
30
(100)
As seen in the table 2.3, in question no. 9 53.33% of the respondents will copy it and
46.67% will not copy it. In question no. 10, 30% will tell the instructor and 70% will not tell it to
the instructor. In question no. 11, 90% will go back and help the old lady cross the street and 10%
will not go back to the old lady cross the street. In question no. 12, 66.67% will tell their Mother
that it was their older sister who broke the vase and 33.33% will not tell the truth. In question no.
13, 63.33% will tell the authorities on what happened and 36.67% will not tell the authorities.

CONCLUSIONS
Based on the findings of the study, the following conclusions were drawn:
1. The environment affects a person’s perspectives of good and bad.
2. Just because an environment is unhealthy, it does not mean that it is chaotic.
3. Just because an environment is not chaotic, it does not mean that it is healthy.
4. On stages 19-22, which is included in the adolescent stage, respondents answered that they
developed to be a good person and are still developing as aligned to being good.
6. The environment of an individual affects his moral development.
7. The character development of a person is affected by his environment.
8. The character development of an individual is a major factor in his moral judgement and moral
reasoning.
9. In an ideal environment, an individual consider the right and wrongs when making a decision.
10. In an ideal environment, an individual consider others when making a decision.
11. Ideally, an individual makes his decision through moral reason and impartiality, considering
the right and wrongs, and the people affected by the decision.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the conclusions drawn, the following recommendations were set forth:
1. The survey questionnaires be improved.
2. The respondents should vary more in age and not only focus on adolescents.
3. The number of respondents should be increased.
4. Further research on how is moral character developed stages of moral development reasons and
impartiality as requirements for ethics.

REFERENCES
Sahlins, M. D. (2008). The Western illusion of human nature. Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press.
Sanders, C. E. (2023, November 6). Lawrence Kohlberg’s stages of moral
development. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/science/Lawrence-
Kohlbergs-stages-of-moral-development
Mercier, H. (2011). What good is moral reasoning?. Mind & Society, 10, 131-148.
Saunders, L. (2015). What is moral reasoning? Philosophical Psychology. (PDF) What is moral
reasoning? (researchgate.net)
Greene, J. (2008). The Secret Joke of Kant's Soul. In W. Sinnott-Armstrong (Ed.), Moral
Psychology Volume 3: The Neuroscience of Morality: Emotion, Brain Disorders, and
Development: MIT Press.

Greene, J. (2008). The Secret Joke of Kant’s Soul. In W. Sinnott-Armstrong (Ed.), Moral
Prinz, J. (2006). The Emotional Basis of Moral Judgments. Philosophical Explorations, 9(1), 29-
43.
Craigie, J. (2011). Thinking and Feeling: Moral Deliberation in a Dual-Process Framework.
Philosophical Psychology, 24(1), 53-71.
Kennett, J., & Fine, C. (2009). Will the Real Moral Judgment Please Stand Up? The Implications
of the Social Intuitionist Models of Cognition for Meta-ethics and Moral Psychology. Ethical
Theory and Moral Practice, 12(1), 77-96.
Sidgwick, Henry. 1996. The Methods of Ethics. The Works of Henry Sidgwick. Bristol:
Thoemmes Press.
Baier, Kurt. 1991. Egoism. In A Companion to Ethics. Edited by Peter Singer. Blackwell
Companions to Philosophy. Oxford and Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Reference, pp. 197–204.
Eliane Rubinstein-Avila & En Hye Lee (2014) Secondary Teachers and English Language
Learners (ELLs): Attitudes, Preparation and Implications, The Clearing House: A Journal of
Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 87:5, 187-191, DOI: 10.1080/00098655.2014.910162
De Guzman, M. F. D., Edaño, D. C., & Umayan, Z. D. (2017). Understanding the Essence of the
Outcomes-Based Education (OBE) and Knowledge of its Implementation in a Technological
University in the Philippines. Asia Pacific Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 5(4). Retrieved
from https://bit.ly/2H3cRxG (accessed last January 4, 2019)
Wheeler, Michael A., and Julianna Pillemer. "Moral Decision-Making: Reason, Emotion &
Luck." Harvard Business School Background Note 910-029, April 2010. (Revised November
2010.)
Velásquez, A., West, R. E., Graham, C. R., & Osguthorpe, R. D. (2013). Developing caring
relationships in schools: a review of the research on caring and nurturing pedagogies. Review of
Education, 1(2), 162–190. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3014
Bhandari, P. (2023, June 22). What Is Qualitative Research? | Methods & Examples. Scribbr.
Retrieved December 2, 2023, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/qualitative-research/

FINAL-RESEARCH-ETICS.docx How Character development affects reasoning and impartiality

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to FINAL-RESEARCH-ETICS.docx How Character development affects reasoning and impartiality

Similar to FINAL-RESEARCH-ETICS.docx How Character development affects reasoning and impartiality (10)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

FINAL-RESEARCH-ETICS.docx How Character development affects reasoning and impartiality