Moral Reasoning
From WikEd
Contents |
[edit] Moral Reasoning
Image:Http://school.discovery.com/clipart/small/question.gif
[edit] Description
Although Jean Piaget was the first theorist to describe the development of moral reasoning, Lawrence Kohlberg has had the most powerful impact. Kohlberg researched the practice of assessing moral reasoning by giving subjects a series of hypothetical delimmas, each of which spotlighted a specific moral issue. As a result of his research findings, Kohlberg concluded that there were three main levels of moral reasoning, with two stages within each level.
[edit] Stages of Moral Reasoning
- Level 1: Preconventional Morality
~Stage 1: Punishment and obedience orientation ~Stage 2: Individualism, instrumental purpose, and exchange
- Level 2: Conventional Morality
~Stage 3: Mutual interpersonal expectations, relationships, and interpersonal conformity ~Stage 4: Social system and conscience (law and order)
- Level 3: Principled or Postconventional Morality
~Stage 5: Social contract or utility and individual rights ~Stage 6: Universal ethical principles(Bee, 1995)
Image:Http://school.discovery.com/clipart/small/ani-hello.gif
[edit] Explanation of Stages
In the preconventional morality level, people judge an action by its direct consequences. In stage one of this level, a person thinks about the direct consequences the action will have for them. An action is wrong if it results in punishment. In stage two, right behavior is defined by what is best for me. A slight perspective of the views of others can occur, but only when it furthers my own interests.
In the conventional morality level, people judge an action by comparing it to social rules and expectations. In stage three, a person judges the morality of an action by what the people around him may approve. Moral actions are those that follow the expectations of the family. In stage four, moral actions are defined by society. It is important to do moral actions because of the importance of maintaining an orderly society.
In the principled or postconventional morality level, people judge an action based on the interests of others. In stage five, actions are right if they give the greatest good to the greatest number of people. The adult knows that most values are relative (excepting a few such as the importance of each person's life and freedom), although rules should be obeyed to preserve social order. In stage six, the adult develops and obeys self-chosen, carefully thought out, integrated, and consistently followed set of ethical principles. A person uses abstract reasoning to form universal ethical principles.
Kohlberg later added two stages to his original six. Stage four and one half is when a person is disappointed with societal laws and becomes a moral relativist. Stage seven, called transcendental morality, is one that uses religion to judge one's actions ("Kohlberg's Stages," 2004)
From level 1 (preconventional morality) to level 2 (conventional morality), there is a shift from moral reasoning based on external consequences and personal gain to moral reasoning based on the rules (spoken and unspoken) of a group to which the individual belongs. From level 2 to level 3 (postconventional morality), the shift is from following others' authority to following a kind of personal authority with self-chosen principles (Bee, 1995).
It was a belief of Kohlberg's that people always progressed through each stage one at a time, rather than skipping any stages. A person could not move from stage two to stage four without going through stage three first. Kohlberg also believed that moral development could come, in part, through formal education, but that most development occurs through social interaction (Barger, 2000).
[edit] Examples
One of the most famous examples that was used by Kohlberg in his research is the Heinz dilemma. Here is the story: In Europe, a woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought would 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 $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about half of the 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." (Bee, 1995).
The question was then asked of the research subjects, "Should Heinz steal the drug? Why or why not?" From Kohlberg's point of view, what the participant thinks Heinz should do is not important. The important thing is the justification of the action. Examples of possible arguments that belong to each of the six stages are as follows:
- Stage one: Heinz should not steal the medicine for fear of being put into prison.
- Stage two: Heinz should steal the medicine because he will be much happier if his wife is healed.
- Stage three: Heinz should steal the medicine because his wife expects him to do so.
- Stage four: Heinz should not steal the medicine because stealing is against the law.
- Stage five: Heinz should steal the medicine because everyone has a right to live, regardless of what the law says.
- Stage six: Heinz should steal the medicine because human life is a more fundamental value than property rights.
- Stage seven: Heinz should not steal the medicine because sickness is just part of the natural life-and-death cycle. They should just enjoy the time they have left together ("Kohlberg's Stages," 2004).
According to Kohlberg, what defines a person's moral reasoning stage is not the specific moral choice, but the reasoning used to justify that choice (Bee, 1995).
[edit] High School Example (Hinman)
Stage 1 Teacher has latecomers do 50 pushups in front of the class.
Stage 2 Group of students involved in a cooperative learning activity get upset
because one of their group members is repeatedly absent and did not do
any work.
Stage 3 Student writes in her journal "I am going to work harder in school so I
won't let you down because if you think I can make it then I can make
it."
Stage 4 "Move carefully in the halls." This rule reinforces the fundamental
purpose of government to protect the health and welfare of its citizens.
Stage 5 Example for a handout in a high school class: "Please remember that
this is your room and your class. The behavior and participation of
each person will shape the type of learning that will occur. Since one
person's behavior affects everyone else. I request that everyone in the
class be responsible for classroom managment. To ensure that our rights
are protected and upheld, the following laws have been established for
this classroom...."
Stage 6 High school teacher: "I will not tolerate any racial, ethnic, or sexual
slurs in this classroom. It is not fair to erase someone's face. In
this room, everyone is entitled to equal dignity as a human being."
[edit] Application in Schools
A large part of moral development is dependant on social interaction. I think these are valuable tools for many students. I have found that to be true in my lower end kids. They don’t get much from the academic areas because of their low functioning, but also lack social skills. These students need more of these interactions. These are what I would call teachable moments. Things come up in the day that because of standards and timelines, they can’t get covered. Social relevance and acceptable interaction is what gets cut out. It would be great to be able to have life skills for all students. I am going to talk to my administration about adding this into our enrichment course.
Many states require or encourage schools to teach character education. It is seen as an important way to help reduce drug dependency, weapons in school, and bullying. Teaching students about moral reasoning helps them to control their behavior. It teaches them to think first rather than acting first. One elementary school in Denver has implemented a class that teaches fifth graders to apply moral reasoning to situations that they are likely to face, such as peer pressure or racism (Lloyd, 2002). Moral development can come through formal education, however most development occurs through social interaction. Whether formally or socially, teachers have an incredible amount of contact with their students, therefore they play an important role in the development of moral reasoning.
For a further example of how moral reasoning is applied to a classroom curriculum, see Lloyd, J. Drilled in the skills of moral reasoning. The Christian Science Monitor, November 26, 2002.
Moral reasoning is the basis of Alfie Kohn's educational theory. According to Kohn, moral reasoning must be discussed and constructed through ongoing class discussions between teachers and students. This, Kohn argues, is the first and most important issue in education. (Kohn 1997)
[edit] Evidence
[edit] Critics
Kohlberg's initial basis had a gender flaw. He neglected to administer his dilemmas to females.(Hinman)
Gilligan studied under Erik Erikson and was interested with the question "why do some individuals recognize a higher moral law, while others simply are content to obey the rules without question?" In her research he got sidetracked from the Vietnam War draft, because President Nixon had just ended the draft, and landed on the difficult moral choices about abortion. As a result of her research she found that either "females are less morally developed than males, or something is wrong with Kihlberg's framework" (Hinman)
Another criticism of Kohlberg's work stems from the abstract nature of the moral dilemmas that he presented. It was cited that many of the dilemmas were far removed from the experiences of the subject. Therefore, to draw conclusions based upon this research was unrealistic. (Conley, et al)
[edit] Personal Testimonies
I find the information provided about Kohlberg's studies on moral reasoning very interesting and practical for understanding students. I believe that our school system encourages students to stay in the first stage of development, because its rules of punishment and reward are always associated with being "bad" and "good". There is no room in the school venue for a student to act on their own priciples against the status quo. They are so immediately punished and ostracized that there is no encouragement to become a self-principled individual. However, I have noticed that when rules are challenged by students or teachers, administrators usually rely on stage two: what is good for the many is right! This is the extent of moral reasoning in most American school systems. I would add, though, that I disagree with Kohlberg on one important point. I don't think that progression of moral reasoning is necessarily linear and I believe that people can have different levels of moral reasoning depending on the area of the dilemma. As for the progression, how could a young adult with a severely abusive or lacking home situation ever base their reasoning on the norms of their family? Perhaps they do only to reject it, or perhaps the internal conflict that ensues creates psychological consequences, but it seems to me that a rational young person would skip that stage. Also, I believe that some may appeal to "the group" (stage 2) in certain situations that involve their standing in the community, while they may still rely on a reward/punishment mentality with respect to their homelife or their families. I think that certains types of moral dilemmas can elicit different stages from the same person. I wonder what Kohlberg (and others) think about that.
As a teacher, I try to incorporate teaching moral reasoning in my classes. I believe that it is very important for students to be able to think through their choices and know why they make the choices that they make. I want to help my students progress through the stages of moral reasoning as much as I can. I want my students to move past the stages of basing their decisions on themselves and move towards basing their decisions on other people and on standards they have found to be true. I want them to base their decisions on truth, not just on how they are feeling that day. I agree with Kohlberg that most of this development comes through social interaction. I therefore try to demonstrate the highest stage of moral reasoning in my own life, although admittedly I often fail. I also help students talk through their decisions as situations come up in their lives. I try to help them make good decisions and learn from their mistakes. I believe that this kind of teaching is more important than book learning. This kind of teaching will make my students become more like the people they were created to be. Elizabeth Giger
I like how this approach recognizes different reasoning levels and looks at the underlying basis for behavior rather than simply behavior alone. I am not very enthusiastic about programs like the all popular “character education” these days which doesn’t seem to address the underlying reasoning. The focus of character education is on outcome/behavior rather than what is causing the behavior. I can’t see this kind of superficial approach leading to real moral development. –J. Blanken-Webb
[edit] Web Resources
Developing the Moral Reasoning Skills of Elementary Students
[edit] References
Barger, R.N. (2000). A Summary of Lawrence Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development. Retrieved November 29, 2004, from http://www.nd.edu/~rbarger/kohlberg.html
Bee, H. (1995). The growing child. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.
Conley, Terri D., Jadack, Rosemary A., Shibley-Hide, Janet. "Moral Dilemmas, Moral Reasoning, and Genital Herpes," Journal of Sex Research. Summer, 1997
Hinman, Lawrence M. PhD. Director, The Values Institute Moral Reasoning and Gender The Kohlberg-Gilligan Debate and Beyond Power Point. University of San Diego http://ethics.acusd.edu/presentations/Theory/Gender/Gender.ppt
Lloyd, J. (2002, November 26). Drilled in the skills of moral reasoning. The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved December 15, 2004, from http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1126/p14s01-lecs.htm
Wikipedia. (2004, November 17). Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development. Retrieved November 28, 2004, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development
Kohn, A. (1997)HOW NOT TO TEACH VALUES: A Critical Look at Character Education. PHI DELTA KAPPAN
