Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The concept of justice
Prosocial behaviour with personal example
Prosocial behaviour with personal example
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Lawrence Kohlberg found an accurate outline t the moral stages of a person with his justice perspective , but those stage are created through the care perspective I believe. Kohlberg's three stages are the result of Carol Gilligan's care perspective. In the example of a moral dilemma on page 310 ; I believe that the husband acted with a Postconventional moral approach but that the reason he did was based on his relationship and concern for his wife's death. The prosocial behavior can explain why he choose the route to steal the drug; his parents of social surroundings probably encoded in his conscience that no matter the risk it is best to save the ones we love. Prosocial behavior I believe is the over all answer to how ones morals are created …show more content…
In the video a very tough decision is presented and like they said most would pull the switch, rather than push the man on the tracks. Yes the out come is the same but this decision is based on ones moral code; the one that pulls the switch believes they are not directly killing someone. But the one who pushes the man has been taught that is morally wrong because they are doing the killing directly . To me both are immoral because my moral believes are that we find a solution to save all the life's. I based this conclusion on that both pushing the man down and pulling the switch are committing murder. Consequently I would try and warn the others to move by means of throwing something at them or running over myself and pushing them out of the way. I was brought up that self sacrifice is necessary . My mother sacrificed for her children demonstrating a moral code. So in conclusion both Kohlberg and Gilligan are correct but the prosocial approach explains how those approaches are even
I noticed in Piaget stages of moral development Kevin is in the autonomous morality stage. Kevin has realized the rules at school and standards can be negotiated and or changed because his parents can get the school to change the rules or policies for his benefit. On Kohlberg’s stage Kevin, his behaviors can be related to the conventional level stage 4. Broderick and Blewitt describes Kohlberg’s conventional morality as “what is right depends on other’s approval or on the need to maintain social order” (pg. 261). Kevin’s peers react to his negative behaviors is effecting his moral
Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development is three levels consisting of two stages in each. Kohlberg’s Theory explains how a human’s mind morally develops. Level one is typically common in younger children. The two stages in level one are pre-conventional stages. Stage one is obedience and punishment driven; one will judge an action by the consequences given. Stage two is out of self interest. Level two is mostly common in teenagers. The stages in this level
Though individuals live by and react similarly to various situations, not all people have the same morals. I can relate to instances where I have supported a belief, regardless of the criticisms that arise, all because my choice is based upon personal morals. The same can be said regarding Debra J. Dickerson as she expresses in her novel, An American Story. In Carol Gilligan’s “Concepts of Self and Morality,” she states, “The moral person is one who helps others; goodness in service, meeting one’s obligations and responsibilities to others, if possible without sacrificing oneself” (170). After considering this statement, I strongly feel that Gilligan’s proposal lacks the depth to accurately characterize the moral person, but I am able to accept the argument raised by Joan Didion. Her essay entitled, “On Morality,” clearly provides a more compelling and acceptable statement in describing the moral person by saying, “I followed my own conscience, I did what I thought was right” (181). Joan Didion’s proposal is precise and acceptable. It is obvious that as long as people follow what they believe is the right thing to do, and approach the situation maturely, their actions can be considered examples of morality, and they can then be considered moral human beings.
However, in order for her thesis to be correct, the Bystander at the Switch case must always be morally permissible. There should be no situation in which it is morally impermissible to kill the one and save the five. If there were such a situation, where both parts of Thomson’s thesis remained true but it would still be morally impermissible to kill the one because of some outside factor, then Thomson’s thesis would no longer be the complete answer.
In Kohlbergs moral stages five & six people begin to understand morals and social good then moral reasoning. Basic human rights become important as well as principles.
The moral development of children can depend on many factors. Parenting and upbringing of the child, their environment, social environment, gender, and race are all aspects that can contribute to how a child develops their moral standards and expectations. Many psychologist have tried for several years to develop a theory to how morality is developed. One in particular is Lawrence Kohlberg (1958), his moral development theory is based on the cognitive development of children and it is thought that moral development proceeds and changes as cognitive development occurs (Arnett, 2012). Kohlberg’s moral development theory consist of 3 different levels each containing 2 stages altogether making 6 stages of moral development, as Kohlberg conducted
Gilligan also believe that guilt is part of violence. Shame causes violence but guilt inhibits it. He believe that when an individual is so disrespected, abuse, humiliated and lacking in self-love, behaved as if they could not emotionally afford to love others, as if they need to conserve the love that they were capable of giving. For that reason those individuals who are capable of killing is because they are incapable of love and feeling guilty of what they did; remorse for others. Depending on the degree of pain they cause to the other individual, the less of feeling of guilt and remorse is present. The motivation of violence is to gain pride and abolish the feeling of shame and humiliation. When an individual gains pride the feeling of being rewarded, powerful and respected is the feeling they gain when they hurt others, naturally that is the feeling that every human wants to have (Gilligan, 2003). Is like a circle, the lacking of empathy is because of the guilt they feel by others. Starting with susceptible to shame which leads to the lack of love to others and then it leads to ...
If an action can pass the Categorical Imperative, then it is a good choice. According to Kant, “The general idea behind the Categorical Imperative is that you should not act on motives that you would not want to be universal law… so in essence, you should not do what you would not want others to do…” (Philosophyfactory par. 4). In other words, would you always choose the greater good over the one (to pull the rail switch lever)? On the other hand, as I am suggesting what Alex should do, (not pull the rail switch lever) choose the value of one over choosing to kill and end a life. The choice that Alex is facing is about the choosing to end a life by pulling the rail switch lever vs doing nothing and allowing fate to play out which in the end would result in the train killing five
According to the theory of consequentialism, “an action is morally required just because it produces the best overall results” (Landau, 2015, p.121). In this view, an individual’s action is deemed moral only if it produces the optimific result in any situation. In the article “Framing Effect in the Trolley Problem and Footbridge Dilemma,” the authors introduced the “Footbridge Dilemma”, wherein an individual is given the option to save the lives of five workers by pushing an innocent man towards an incoming trolley (Cao, et. al, 2017, p. 90). In this dilemma, consequentialism suggests that it is moral to push the innocent man and save the workers. Even though pushing the man would kill him, the action would yield the optimific outcome in that
In the story the “train switch dilemma” a single train car is rushing toward a group of five unknowing workers who cannot hear the train approaching. Another train worker, who we will call Alex is working at his summer job, he sees the train headed for the five unknowing workers. Alex notices a rail switch lever which if pulled will divert the train onto a different track, however, if Alex pulls the rail switch lever he sees that it will divert the train to a track with one lone worker surely killing the one standing alone. The rail switch lever presents the following dilemma, do nothing and the train continues on its path towards the five, or pull the rail switch lever and send the train towards the one person. In this essay I will show why
An example would be three starving men aboard the boat. If all three men agreed on a lottery to decide which of the three of them would die to keep the other two men alive then I feel that is justifiable if the person chosen agreed to the terms. No one wants to die in that type situation, but if one person doesn’t sacrifice them self then the whole crew will die. When it comes to survival people will do what they need to do to survive. In my opinion, survival situations often bring out the worst in people. If an individual was faced with a survival situation willing to compromise his or her beliefs to further survive don’t you think they would? I’m not talking about unnecessary possessions, but rather human needs such as food and water that are essential to life. In the situation where the three men were stranded on a boat with their food supply cut off they came up with an alternative food source. “It’s easy enough for anyone to sit back in the comfort of one’s own home and wrestle with where he or she would draw the proverbial moral line, but if you were actually thrust in the middle of a dire emergency, what would it take for these morals to fall by the wayside?” (“No More Dependence,” 2011). For most people their morals would gradually diminish over time if the circumstances were dire
Kohlberg’s theory of the stages of moral development has gained some popularity despite being controversial. The claim that the levels form a “ladder,” the bottom being the immature child with a pre-conventional level and the top being a post conventional ethical individual. The sequence is unvarying and the subject must begin at the bottom with aspirations to reach the top, possibly doing so. (7) Research confirms that individuals from different cultures actually progress according to Kohlbergs theory, at least to the conventional level. Kohlberg’s stages of moral development continue to provide a foundation for psychology studies of moral reasoning. (6)
What is moral development? In a nutshell, it’s the progression of morality throughout one’s lifetime by means of different stages. There are six of these stages, developed by Lawrence Kohlberg, that help to explain our moral choices and cognitive skills relative to our approximate age. Furthermore, as Kohlberg suggests, everyone reaches stages one through four: Punishment and Obedience, Instrumental Purpose and Exchange, Interpersonal Expectations and Conformity, and Law and order, respectively. Stage1 is characterized by the threat of punishment and the promise of reward. Stage 2 actions are
Kohlberg, L. (1984). The psychology of moral development: the nature and validity of moral stages. San Francisco: Harper & Row.
He presents a few hypothetical stories and one real one to get the students to think this question through. In one of the illustrations used the professor asks how many in the audience would actually push a “fat man” over a bridge onto the tracks below to stop a runaway trolley from killing five workers who were on the tracks in the way of the unstoppable trolley. I was surprised to see that a few hands actually went up. The argument of a student that had raised their hand in hypothetical agreement to pushing the man over the bridge, for the greater good, was that five other lives would be saved for the life of this one. Opposing views, of which whom I agreed with, were that by pushing the “fat man” over the bridge you were actually choosing and making a conscious decision to take a life; who are we to decide whose life is more valuable than