From this week’s material I found the three levels of moral
reasoning interesting. There are three levels of moral reasoning and each level
is divided into two stages, for a total of six stages. The first level is known
as the preconventional level and this is where one’s reasoning is based on external
forces such as receiving a punishment or reward. The first stage is known as
obedience orientation and one’s moral reasoning is founded on the idea that
adults know what is right and what is wrong. The second stage is instrumental
orientation this is where one’s morals stem from their own needs. The second level is the conventional level. This
is where one’s moral reasoning is built on society’s expectations or what
others think them. The first stage of this level is the interpersonal norms and
one’s morals are centered on winning others approval, whereas the second stage focuses
on social system morality. In this section one believes in maintaining society
to promote the good of all people. The last level of Kohlberg’s theory is the
post-conventional level. This is the level where one’s reasoning is grounded on
personal moral code and is not dependent upon external forces. The first stage
of this level is based on one’s belief that laws are good for everyone, and the
last stage is universal ethical principles in which one believes that everyone
share the same morals and values.
As I child my moral reasoning was at the preconventional
level. My morals were strictly based upon if I would receive a punishment or a
reward for my actions. My behavior and thinking was based on if I would get a
reward for a good behavior, and if it was a bad behavior I wouldn’t do it
because I did not want to face the negative consequences. Now that I am an
adult I like to think that I have reached the post-conventional level. I do
have my own moral and code of ethics and it is not biased by anyone opinions-it
is what I personally believe.
I know that there are cultural differences in moral
reasoning, but I would like to know more about different countries and what
their morals are and how does moral reasoning affect their values.
Wow! That was a really well written blog. I especially liked what you said about being an adult with your own morals and code of ethics, being what you personally believe. I think it's great that you have these things. I wish more people did. It seems like the more advanced our society gets, the further away it gets from morals and ethics. Great job!
ReplyDeleteDawna,
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with you all around! Great blog! I also found Kohlberg's theory on the levels of moral reasoning to be interesting as well. It makes so much sense too. I was also one of those children who thought the same about my behavior/actions. If I was good I would recieve a reward and if I wasn't then it would result in some sort of punishment. I really like how you have stated where you believe your level of thinking is at now compared to when you where younger. :)
Hey Dawna, thoughtful post. I too, found the moral reasoning discussion interesting. As I read through Kohlberg, something just wasn't "finding a home" inside of me. As I moved on to Gilligan's questioning of Kohlberg, things felt a little more peaceable and settled.
ReplyDeleteIt seems clear there must be stages. For empathic responses, a developed limbic system must be present. For judgmental decisions, the prefrontal cortex (executive function) must be mature. As we learned, the two mature at different times/rates.
Some interesting detours from Merriam-Webster: 1) Definition of JUSTICE 1a: the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments. Clearly this requires full use of fully mature limbic/executive function.
2) al·tru·ism /ˈæltru:ˌɪzəm/ noun: feelings and behavior that show a desire to help other people and a lack of selfishness. Clearly a well developed limbic system is essential to display altruism.
I thought your question about cross-cultural considerations intriguing. I again went to Merriam and found: Origin of MORAL-Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin moralis, from mor-, mos "custom"; First Known Use: 14th century. So it seems morality has at least some of its roots in custom.
That leads into the cross-cultural discussion. I searched for some recent research and found this:
Int J Psychol. 2011 Jun 1;46(3):161-76. doi: 10.1080/00207594.2011.568486.
Culture and the quest for universal principles in moral reasoning.
Sachdeva S, Singh P, Medin D.
Source
Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, Evanston , IL , USA. s-sachdeva@northwestern.edu
Abstract
The importance of including cultural perspectives in the study of human cognition has become apparent in recent decades, and the domain of moral reasoning is no exception. The present review focuses on moral cognition, beginning with Kohlberg's model of moral development which relies heavily on people's justifications for their judgments and then shifting to more recent theories that rely on rapid, intuitive judgments and see justifications as more or less irrelevant to moral cognition. Despite this dramatic shift, analyses of culture and moral decision-making have largely been framed as a quest for and test of universal principles of moral judgment. In this review, we discuss challenges that remain in trying to understand crosscultural variability in moral values and the processes that underlie moral cognition. We suggest that the universalist framework may lead to an underestimation of the role of culture in moral reasoning. Although the field has made great strides in incorporating more and more cultural perspectives in order to understand moral cognition, theories of moral reasoning still do not allow for substantial variation in how people might conceptualize the domain of the moral. The processes that underlie moral cognition may not be a human universal in any simple sense, because moral systems may play different roles in different cultures. We end our review with a discussion of work that remains to be done to understand cultural variation in the moral domain.
PMID: 22044230 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
I found the authors' statement concerning universality interesting: "The processes that underlie moral cognition may not be a human universal in any simple sense, because moral systems may play different roles in different cultures."
The article is not free online and of course there is not enough time to obtain it from the library. But the abstract contains a few seeds for thought.
Sorry, the whole post was too many characters; here's the end:
ReplyDeleteOne last item:In another journal article (http://1.usa.gov/13pkwsg) the authors try unraveling socio-economic factors relating to moral judgments. They do in fact find socio-economic factors definitely impact moral reasoning.
In closing, I believe one must consider the role religion plays in various cultures/societies. Often particular moral emphasis are made that differ across cultural lines. Thanks for raising an interesting topic and question. Sure did get me poking around a bit.