Conventional Morality Essay

Lawrence Kohlberg Physical consequences of an process at law determine its goodness or badness disregardless of the kind meaning or entertain of these consequences. Avoidance of punishment and inexplicit deference to power argon apprised in their own honestfulness, non in price of respect for an underlying honorable order back up by punishment and office staff. (Duska, R. and Whelan, M. , 1975) analysis The link is for self Will I get into trouble for doing (or non doing) it? Good behaviour is associated with avoiding punishment. deficiency of present 1 reasoning Avoidance of punishment regardless of the honorable value of the actions is unhealthy especially under bad authorities such as Adolf Hitler. * portray 2 Instrumental Relativist orientation Lawrence Kohlberg flop action is that which instrumentally satisfies iodins own needs and occasionally the needs of early(a)s. Human relations ar reckoned in harm bid those of the market straddle elements of fairness, reciprocity and concern sharing are present, further they are always interpreted in a physical or pragmatic way.Reciprocity is a subject area of you scratch my back and Ill scratch yours, non of loyalty, gratitude or justice. (Duska, R. and Whelan, M. , 1975) Summary The concern is Whats in it for me? It is still egocentric in expected value moreover with a growing ability to see things from a nonher persons perspective. Action is judged in effect(p) if it helps in satisfying satisfyingnesss needs or involves a fair exchange. want of submit 2 reasoning Where the needs of distinct undivideds conflict, can in that respect ever be a fair exchange? Doesnt this conflict call for hand from one of the parties?Level 2 Conventional Morality People at this stage conform to the conventions / rules of a partnership. * Stage 3 Good Boy-Nice daughter Orientation Lawrence Kohlberg Good behavior is that which pleases or helps others and is approved by them. thither i s much conformity to stereotypical images of what is majority or natural behaviour. bearing is frequently judged by intention. He means well becomes important for the premiere time. One earns approval by being nice. (Duska, R. and Whelan, M. , 1975) Summary The concern is What lead pack think of me? and the desire is for multitude approval. make up action is one that would please or impress others. This often involves self-sacrifice but it provides the psychological pleasure of approval of others. Actions are also judged in relation to their intention. Inadequacy of Stage 3 reasoning * Same person, different roles OR diametrical groups, different expectations * Different people, different roles * People not living up to their duties or roles * Stage 4 Law and Order Orientation Lawrence Kohlberg Right behavior consists in doing ones duty, showing respect for authority and maintaining the given well-disposed order for its own sake. A person in this stage orients to society a s a system of fixed rule, justice and authority with the prospect of any deviation from rules as leading to hearty chaos. (Duska, R. and Whelan, M. , 1975) Summary The concern now goes beyond ones warm group(s) to the larger society to the maintenance of law and order. Ones cartel to the law overrides ones obligations of loyalty to ones family, friends and groups. To indue it simply, no one or group is above the law. Inadequacy of Stage 4 reasoning * Unquestioning obedience toward authority is unhealthy.* Accepted accessible order may not be the best possible order. The laws of society may even be bad. Level 3 POSTConventional Morality The moral principles that underline the conventions of a society in this level are understood. * Stage 5 Social Contract Orientation Lawrence Kohlberg Generally with utilitarian overtones. Right action tends to be defined in terms of general individual responsibility hands and in terms of standards which have been critically examined and ag reed upon by the whole society with an emphasis upon the possibility of changing law in terms of rational consideration of social utility(prenominal) (rather than rigidly maintaining it in terms of Stage 4 law and order). (Duska, R. and Whelan, M. , 1975) SummaryThe concern is social utility or public interest. While rules are needed to maintain social order, they should not be blindly obeyed but should be set up (even changed) by social contract for the greater good of society. Right action is one that protects the rights of the individual accordance of rightsing to rules agreed upon by the whole society. Inadequacy of Stage 5 reasoning How do we arrive at a consensus on the rules that are good for society?Should a majority group impose their preferences on a minority group? What if you disagree with the conclusion of the majority? * Stage 6 Universal honest Principle Orientation Lawrence Kohlberg Right is defined by the decision of conscience in accord with self-chosen resp ectable principles appealing to logical comprehensiveness, linguistic universality and consistency. These principles are abstract and honourable (the golden rule, the categorical imperative) and are not concrete moral rules like the Ten Commandments.At heart, these are universal principles of justice, of the reciprocity and equality of mankind rights, and of respect for the dignity of human beings as individual persons. (Duska, R. and Whelan, M. , 1975) Summary The concern is for moral principles an action is judged right if it is consistent with self-chosen honorable principles. These principles are not concrete moral rules but are universal principles of justice, reciprocity, equality and human dignity. Inadequacy of Stage 6 reasoning Our conscience is not an unavoidable guide to behaviour beca map it works correspond to the principles we have adopted.Moreover, who or what determines these universal principles? Although moral reasoning does not necessarily lead to moral act ion, the latter(prenominal) is based in part on ones capability to reason about moral choices. Kohlberg was more concerned with the reasoning of the action than the action itself. And that reasoning when acted upon becomes our motivation. II ETHICAL RELATIVISM * Cultural Relativism (sociological relativism) The descriptive view that different groups of people have different moral standards for evaluating acts as right or untimely. A.Hence, it is not an ethical doctrineits a sociological or observational conclusioneven so the view is about ambiguous. B. For example, different groups might have the similar raw material moral principle, but apply the principle in radically different situations. 1. A bet on sense of ethnic relativism is less obvious. I. e. , that different cultures differ on basic moral principles. 2. A possible reason for the observation of cultural relativism is shown by the example of basic moral principles which could be utter to support different moral rul es according to the interpretations of different cultures.In the following diagrams, there are two vastly different interpretations listed for each moral principle. * Ethical Relativism the prescriptive view that (1) different groups of people ought to have different ethical standards for evaluating acts as right or injure, (2) these different beliefs are true(a) in their several(prenominal) societies, and (3) these different beliefs are not typefaces of a basic moral principle. A. The ethical relativist often derives support for his position by two basic mistakes 1.The relativist confuses cultural (or sociological) relativism with ethical relativism, but cultural relativism is a descriptive view and ethical relativism is a prescriptive view. (E. g. , cultural relativismdescribes the way the way people in reality behave, and ethical relativism prescribes the way people ought to behave. 2. The ethical relativist often argues as follows An unassailable ethical standard has never been proved beyond doubt in the history of thought. Thus, an absolute ethical standard does not exist. This argument is an instance ad ignorantiam fallacy.p is unproved not-p is true. From the fact that a invokement has not been proved, we can logically draw no conclusion. B. remonstrances to ethical relativism. 1. The Differing Ideals Objection (or, as it is sometimes called, the linguistic objection) it is inconsistent to say that the same practice is considered right in one society and considered wrong in another. (If right and wrong are to have consistent meaning, then the terms must(prenominal) be apply in the same manner. ) Possible counter-objections (by the ethical relativist) a.The relativist sometimes states that right and wrong have no consistent meaning. These spoken communication reflect just now emotion or perhaps the ceremonial use of language. In other words, this defense shades into ethical subjectivism. Counter-counter-objection (by ethical absolutist) The problem with believing that right and wrong have no consistent meaning is the ordinary use of words in this case results in meaninglessness. What would happen if people used the same word in different situations to refer to different things? conversation would not take place. b.Some ethical relativists believe ethical words are reducible to non-ethical values e. g. , these words have to do with recommendations for extract or well-being. Counter-counter-objection (by ethical absolutist) the problem here is just the difficulty of thought the nature of a non-ethical value. Would a non-ethical value be an aesthetic value? c. Some relativists believe we can justify relativism by intuition, revelation, authority, etc. Counter-counter-objection (by ethical absolutist) these attempts are subjectively based they differ from time to time and place to place.2. genial Health Objection to ethical relativism (from the definition or criterion of a group) If what is right in one group is wrong in another, where exactly does one group end and another begin? Counter-objections to the Mental Health Objection (by the relativist) * Right and wrong are to be impelled in the situation. * Right and wrong are to be determined by what the majority determine at the time and place. * Right and wrong are ultimately established by power or authority. 3.Ad Populum Objection to the relativists belief that ethics is established by what most people believe Simply because most people think something is right does not thereby make it right. Simply because most people think a statement is true does notmake that statement true Counter-objections to the ad populum objection (by the relativist) a. The same difficulty of establishing the meaning of right and wrong exits for the absolutist, pari passu. The absolutist has been unable to state a universally agreed upon meaning to the terms.(Notice that this response is a variant of the ad hominemtu quoque.) b. Other solutions to the questions of t he meaning of key ethical terms according to the relativist are possible by appealing to survival value, consensus gentium, and so on 4. Moral Progress Objection If ethical relativism were correct, there could be no such thing as moral improvement or utilization in cultures or a persons life. To have improvement, we must have a standard by which to judge the difference in moral values. Counter-objections (by the relativist) a. Thats correctwe can make no such judgment that one society is better than another. We could unaccompanied judge by our own values.b. If something like survival value is used to ground moral beliefs, then moral improvement might be identified with increase knowledge concerning survival of the society. * Ethical Absolutism the prescriptive view that there are basic or fundamental ethical principles which are true without qualification or exception as to time, condition, or circumstance. * Ethical nihilism the view that ethical terms such as right and wrong h ave no meaning or are nonsense. A. Objection but something is meant when we say, X is wrong. Counter-objections (by the nihilist)1. If there is no empirical meaning to the terms, they have no cash value. (Q. v. , positivism. ) 2. Whatever can be said, can be said clearly. The burden of proof that the terms have meaning is on the non-nihilist. * Ethical Skepticism the view that ethical terms such as right and wrong might have meaning but their meaning cannot be established. A. Objection to skepticism at this point is methodological. Ethical skepticism should not be held a priori at the beginning of an investigation but should only be a possible outcome after a thorough study.