Moral Reasoning - Kohlberg

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Mar 20, 2004
Messages
4,371
Location
Camas, WA
I find ethics and value systems interesting, and Kohlberg put together a kind of elegant way to describe value systems. It's too pat and simplistic for some, doesn't make to others, but that can also be a characteristic of one’s value system :^) I like it as it's a useful starting point for talking about values, and although 'all models are wrong, some are useful' :^) Some other items that he has described are:

1. People with simpler value systems will have problems understanding the 'ethical reasoning' of someone using one based upon a ‘higher level’.

2. When two different value systems are brought into conflict people will tend to recognize and start to sympathize with the 'higher' level.

3. People can transition from one level to another.

http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/kohlberg.htm

Heinz Steals the Drug

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 $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 $ 1,000 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 Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug-for his wife. Should the husband have done that? (Kohlberg, 1963, p. 19)

Kohlberg is not really interested in whether the subject says "yes" or "no" to this dilemma but in the reasoning behind the answer.

KOHLBERG'S SIX STAGES

Level 1. Preconventional Morality

Stage 1. Obedience and Punishment Orientation.
Stage 2. Individualism and Exchange.

Level II. Conventional Morality

Stage 3. Good Interpersonal Relationships.
Stage 4. Maintaining the Social Order.

Level III. Postconventional Morality

Stage 5. Social Contract and Individual Rights
Stage 6: Universal Principles.

Summary

At stage 1 children think of what is right as that which authority says is right. Doing the right thing is obeying authority and avoiding punishment. At stage 2, children are no longer so impressed by any single authority; they see that there are different sides to any issue. Since everything is relative, one is free to pursue one's own interests, although it is often useful to make deals and exchange favors with others.

At stages 3 and 4, young people think as members of the conventional society with its values, norms, and expectations. At stage 3, they emphasize being a good person, which basically means having helpful motives toward people close to one At stage 4, the concern shifts toward obeying laws to maintain society as a whole.

At stages 5 and 6 people are less concerned with maintaining society for it own sake, and more concerned with the principles and values that make for a good society. At stage 5 they emphasize basic rights and the democratic processes that give everyone a say, and at stage 6 they define the principles by which agreement will be most just.

Moral Thought and Other Forms of Cognition

Kohlberg has also tried to relate his moral stages to other forms of cognition. He has first analyzed his stages in terms of their underlying cognitive structures and has then looked for parallels in purely logical and social thought. For this purpose, he has analyzed his own stages in terms of implicit role-taking capacities, capacities to consider others' viewpoints (Kohlberg, 1976; see also Selman, 1976, and Rest, 1983).

At first, at stage 1, children hardly seem to recognize that viewpoints differ. They assume that there is only one right view, that of authorities. At stage 2, in contrast, they recognize that people have different interests and viewpoints. They seem to be overcoming egocentrism; they see that perspectives are relative to the individual . They also begin to consider how individuals might coordinate their interests in terms of mutually beneficial deals.

At stage 3, people conceptualize role-taking as a deeper, more empathic process; one becomes concerned with the other's feelings. Stage 4, in turn, has a broader, society-wide conception of how people coordinate their roles through the legal system..

Stages 5 and 6, finally, take a more idealized look at how people might coordinate their interests. Stage 5 emphasizes democratic processes, and stage 6 considers how all parties take one another's perspectives according to the principles of justice.

The moral stages, then, reflect expanded insights into how perspectives differ and might be coordinated. As such, the moral stages might be related to stages of logical and social thought which contain similar insights. So far, the empirical evidence suggests that advances in moral thinking may rest upon prior achievements in these other realms (Kohlberg, 1976; Kuhn et al., 1977). For example, children seem to advance to stage 2, overcoming their egocentrism in the moral sphere, only after they have made equivalent progress in their logical and social thought. If this pattern is correct, we can expect to find many individuals who are logical and even socially insightful but still underdeveloped in their moral judgment.
 
The druggist needed to hire a marketer vs trying to market it himself.
lol.gif
Since no commercial transaction could occur to the satisfaction of the buyer and seller It's clear he had priced the drug outside of what was affordable to the market. The lack of competition was of course a contributing factor but the thirst of the market caused the looting.
 
1sttruck

You have got to get out more often
grin.gif


No ..interesting stuff. I just wish the creators of these neat and nifty theories would not write them like they're also trying to get a Nobel Prize for literature.

My English teacher would be proud to have such a student....one that few could integrate a word of what was said.
 
quote:

Originally posted by GROUCHO MARX:
Bottom line, would a jury convict him?

That's stage 7 of my thought process.

Good post though.


That's a realistic view of the world but not morality.

Unless you consider having a better lawyer and being lucky on on the crap shoot process called the jury process as a significant part of morality
smile.gif
 
quote:

1. People with simpler value systems will have problems understanding the 'ethical reasoning' of someone using one based upon a ‘higher level’.

Actually I disagree with this. Keep it simple: I think I can totally understand some bizzaro communoethics, but this does not mean I can't have a simple value system nor does it really mean the complex system is better.
 
If I recall the article that I read in the 70s correctly, a 'level 6' justification would be something like '..it's wrong to sacrifice a life merely for the profit motive, so not only will I steal the drug, I'll do so publicly so that others might benefit from my situation...'. In this case one can't sacrifice one's self publicly as it's the spouse who is in need of the drug.

'Universal' is similar to 'eternal' in some other discussions, and in my opinion has a stricter definition than is commonly assumed, as it' something that has always been so, is so now, and will be so in the future. In the case of similr religious justifications one needs to be careful about the 'time axis' as it's hard to invoke a universal or eternal principle or law if it didn't exist at some point in the past. Some religions seem to handle such conditions gracefully, where 'people don't go to **** ' merely because they weren't around to get the word that there was a choice available.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom