+

MORAL DEVELOPMENT

+Definition

Any changes in observed judgements, behaviours and emotions regarding standards of right or wrong that occur in certain contexts across the lifespan.

+How developmentalists look at morality: Three moral components Affective (emotional component – guilt, shame, etc)

Cognitive (the way we conceptualise right and wrong and decision-making)

Behavioural (reflects how we actually behave when we are tempted to lie, cheat, etc)

+Affective

Believe children are motivated to act in accordance with ethical principles that make them feel pride and avoid guilt and shame.

Psycholoanalytic theorists emphasise the affective component.

In Freud’s theory – the superego evokes the guilt and shame

+Cognitive: Kohlberg (1958)

Six irreversible, universal stages across three levels of morality based on a research interview method

Participants read a hypothetical moral dilemma and provide a moral decision and justification.

Best known is the Heinz dilemma

+

Dilemma In Europe, a woman was near death from a special kind of

cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to make. He paid $400 for the radium and charged $4,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money and tried every legal means, but he could only get together about $2,000, which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying, and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later, But the druggist said, "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it." So, having tried every legal means, Heinz gets desperate and considers breaking into the man's store to steal the drug for his wife.

+Questions 1. Should Heinz steal the drug? 1a. Why or why not? 2. Is it actually right or wrong for him to steal the drug? 2a. Why is it right or wrong? 3. Does Heinz have a duty or obligation to steal the drug? 3a. Why or why not? 4. If Heinz doesn't love his wife, should he steal the drug for her? Does it make a

difference in what Heinz should do whether or not he loves his wife? 4a. Why or why not? 5. Suppose the person dying is not his wife but a stranger. Should Heinz steal the

drug for the stranger? 5a. Why or why not? 6. Suppose it's a pet animal he loves. should Heinz steal to save the pet animal? 6a. Why or why not? 7. Is it important for people to do everything they can to save another's life? 7a. Why or why not? 8. It is against the law for Heinz to steal. Does that make it morally wrong? 8a. Why or why not? 9. In general, should people try to do everything they can to obey the law? 9a. Why or why not? 9b. How does this apply to what Heinz should do? 10. In thinking back over the dilemma, what would you say is the most

responsible thing for Heinz to do? 10a. Why?

+Kohlberg’s Levels and Stages

Level 1: Preconventional (consists of Stages 1 and 2)- Child conforms to rules in order to avoid punishment or to obtain rewards. Morality is self-serving.

What is right is what one can get away with or what is personally satisfying!!

+Level 1 – Stage 1:Punishment-and-obedience orientation The goodness/badness of an act depends on its

consequences. The child will obey authorities to avoid punishment, but may not consider an act wrong if it will not be punished. The > the harm done or the > severe the punishment = > “bad” the act is.

E.g. Protheft: It isn’t really bad to take the drug – he did ask to pay for it first. He wouldn’t do any other damage or take anything else, and the drug he’d take is only worth $200, not $2000

Antitheft: He doesn’t have permission to take the drug. He can’t just break in. He’d be a bad criminal doing all that damage… and stealing anything so expensive would be a big crime.

+Level 1 – Stage 2Naïve Hedonism

Conforms to rules in order to gain rewards or satisfy personal objectives. There is some concern for the perspective of others, but ultimately motivated by the hope of benefiting in return.

“You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours!”

E.g. Protheft: Heinz isn’t really doing any harm to the druggist, and he can always pay him back. If he doesn’t want to lose his wife, he should take the drug.

Antitheft: The druggist isn’t wrong, he just wants to make a profit like everybody else!

+LEVEL 2: CONVENTIONAL

Consists of Stages 3 and 4

Strives to obey rules and social norms in order to win others’ approval or to maintain social order. Social praise and the avoidance of blame are now motivators of ethical conduct. Perspectives of others are clearly recognised and given careful consideration.

+Level 2 – Stage 3“Good Boy” or “Good Girl” orientation Moral behaviour is that which pleases, helps, or is

approved by others. Actions are evaluated on the basis of the actor’s intent.

E.g. Protheft: Stealing is bad, but Heinz is only doing something that is natural for a good husband to do. You can’t blame him for doing something out of love for his wife. You’d blame him if he didn’t save her.

Antitheft: If Heinz’s wife dies, he can’t be blamed. You can’t say he is heartless for failing to commit a crime. The druggist is the selfish and heartless one. Heinz tried to do everything he really could.

+Level 2- Stage 4Social Order Maintaining

The individual considers the perspective of the generalised other – that is, the will of society (reflected in law). Now what is right conforms to the rules of LEGAL authority. The reason for conforming is a belief that rules and laws maintain a social order that is worth preserving.

E.g. Protheft: The druggist is leading the wrong kind of life if he just lets somebody die; so it’s Heinz’s duty to save his wife. But Heinz just can’t go around breaking laws - he must pay the druggist back and take his punishment for stealing.

Antitheft: It’s natural for Heinz to want to save his wife, but it’s still always wrong to steal. You have to follow the rules regardless of your feelings or the special circumstances

+LEVEL 3: Postconventional

Consists of Stages 5 and 6

The person defines right and wrong in terms of broad principles of justice that could conflict with written laws or authority figures. Morally right and legally proper are not always one and the same.

Stage 6 is Kohlberg’s vision of ideal moral reasoning, but is so rare and virtually no one functions consistently at this level. The later versions of Kohlberg’s manual for scoring moral judgments no longer attempt to measure Stage 6 reasoning!

+Level 3 – Stage 5The Social Contract Orientation

The person views laws as instruments for expressing the will of the majority and furthering human values. Imposed laws that compromise human rights or dignity are considered unjust and worthy of challenge.

E.g. Protheft: Before you say stealing is morally wrong, you’ve got to consider the whole situation. Of course, the laws are quite clear about breaking into a store. And… Heinz would know that there were no legal grounds for his actions. Yet it would be reasonable for anybody, in that kind of situation, to steal the drug.

Antitheft: I can see the good that would come from illegally taking the drug. But the ends don’t justify the means. The law represents a consensus of how people have agreed to live together, and Heinz has an obligation to respect these agreements. You can’t say Heinz would be completely wrong to steal the drug, but even these circumstances don’t make it right.

+Level 3 – Stage 6Morality of Individual Principles of Conscience The person defines right and wrong on the basis of the

self-chosen ethical principles of his or her own conscience. These principles are not concrete rules – they are abstract moral guidelines of universal justice and respect for the rights of all human beings. It transcends any law or social contract that may conflict with them.

E.g. Protheft: When one must choose between disobeying a law and saving a human life, the higher principle of preserving life makes it morally right to steal the drug

Antitheft: Heinz’s wife has a right to die and he should not force his views on her by stealing and administering the drug.

+Dilemma activity

Judy was a twelve-year-old girl. Her mother promised her that she could go to a special rock concert coming to their town if she saved up from baby-sitting and lunch money to buy a ticket to the concert. She managed to save up the fifteen dollars the ticket cost plus another five dollars. But then her mother changed her mind and told Judy that she had to spend the money on new clothes for school. Judy was disappointed and decided to go to the concert anyway. She bought a ticket and told her mother that she had only been able to save five dollars. That Saturday she went to the performance and told her mother that she was spending the day with a friend. A week passed without her mother finding out. Judy then told her older sister, Louise, that she had gone to the performance and had lied to her mother about it. Louise wonders whether to tell their mother what Judy did.

In groups of 3-4, write two hypothetical responses to this dilemma from each of the Kohlberg’s stages (one for and one against Louise telling their mother what Judy did)