Conventional Morality Essay Essay Example

Conventional Morality Essay Essay Example Conventional Morality Essay Paper Conventional Morality Essay Paper Lawrence Kohlberg: â€Å"Physical effects of an action determine its goodness or badness regardless of the human significance or value of these effects. Avoidance of penalty and unquestioning respect to power are valued in their ain right. non in footings of regard for an implicit in moral order supported by penalty and authorization. † ( Duska. R. and Whelan. M. . 1975 ) Summary: The concern is for ego – â€Å"Will I get into problem for making ( or non making ) it? † Good behavior is associated with avoiding penalty. Insufficiency of Stage 1 logical thinking: Avoidance of penalty regardless of the ethical value of the actions is unhealthy particularly under â€Å"bad† governments such as Adolf Hitler. * Phase 2: Instrumental Relativist Orientation Lawrence Kohlberg: Right action is â€Å"that which instrumentally satisfies one’s ain demands and on occasion the demands of others. † â€Å"Human dealingss are viewed in footings like those of the market place ; elements of equity. reciprocality and equal sharing are present. but they are ever interpreted in a physical or matter-of-fact manner. Reciprocity is a affair of ‘you scratch my dorsum and I’ll abrasion yours. ’ non of trueness. gratitude or justness. † ( Duska. R. and Whelan. M. . 1975 ) Summary: The concern is â€Å"What’s in it for me? † It is still egoistic in mentality but with a turning ability to see things from another person’s position. Action is judged right if it helps in fulfilling one’s demands or involves a just exchange. Inadequacy of Stage 2 logical thinking: Where the demands of different persons struggle. can there of all time be a just exchange? Doesn’t this struggle call for forfeit from one of the parties? Degree 2 – Conventional Morality People at this phase conform to the conventions / regulations of a society. * Phase 3: Good Boy-Nice Girl Orientation Lawrence Kohlberg: â€Å"Good behaviour is that which pleases or helps others and is approved by them. There is much conformance to stereotyped images of what is bulk or ‘natural’ behavior. Behavior is often judged by purpose. ‘He means well’ becomes of import for the first clip. One earns blessing by being ‘nice. ‘† ( Duska. R. and Whelan. M. . 1975 ) Summary: The concern is â€Å"What will people believe of me? † and the desire is for group blessing. Right action is one that would delight or affect others. This frequently involves selflessnesss but it provides the psychological pleasance of ‘approval of others. ‘ Actions are besides judged in relation to their purpose. Insufficiency of Stage 3 logical thinking: * Same individual. different functions OR Different groups. different outlooks * Different people. different functions * People non populating up to their responsibilities or functions * Stage 4: Law and Order Orientation Lawrence Kohlberg: â€Å"Right behaviour consists in making one’s responsibility. demoing regard for authorization and keeping the given societal order for its ain interest. † A individual in this phase â€Å"orients to society as a system of fixed regulation. jurisprudence and authorization with the chance of any divergence from regulations as taking to societal pandemonium. † ( Duska. R. and Whelan. M. . 1975 ) Summary: The concern now goes beyond one’s immediate group ( s ) to the larger society †¦ to the care of jurisprudence and order. One’s duty to the jurisprudence overrides one’s duties of trueness to one’s household. friends and groups. To set it merely. no 1 or group is above the jurisprudence. Inadequacy of Stage 4 logical thinking: * Unquestioning obeisance toward authorization is unhealthy. * Accepted societal order may non be the best possible order. The Torahs of society may even be bad. Degree 3 – POSTConventional Morality The moral rules that underline the conventions of a society in this degree are understood. * Phase 5: Social Contract Orientation Lawrence Kohlberg: â€Å"Generally with useful overtones. Right action tends to be defined in footings of general single rights and in footings of criterions which have been critically examined and agreed upon by the whole society †¦ with an accent upon the possibility of altering jurisprudence in footings of rational consideration of societal public-service corporation ( instead than stiffly keeping it in footings of Stage 4 jurisprudence and order ) . † ( Duska. R. and Whelan. M. . 1975 ) Summary: The concern is societal public-service corporation or public involvement. While regulations are needed to keep societal order. they should non be blindly obeyed but should be set up ( even changed ) by societal contract for the greater good of society. Right action is one that protects the rights of the single harmonizing to regulations agreed upon by the whole society. Insufficiency of Stage 5 logical thinking: How do we get at a consensus on the regulations that are good for society? Should a bulk group enforce their penchants on a minority group? What if you disagree with the determination of the bulk? * Phase 6: Universal Ethical Principle Orientation Lawrence Kohlberg: â€Å"Right is defined by the determination of scruples in agreement with self-chosen ethical rules appealing to logical fullness. catholicity and consistence. These rules are abstract and ethical ( the aureate regulation. the categorical jussive mood ) and are non concrete moral regulations like the Ten Commandments. At bosom. these are cosmopolitan rules of justness. of the reciprocality and equality of human rights. and of regard for the self-respect of human existences as single individuals. † ( Duska. R. and Whelan. M. . 1975 ) Summary: The concern is for moral rules †¦ an action is judged right if it is consistent with self-chosen ethical rules. These rules are non concrete moral regulations but are cosmopolitan rules of justness. reciprocality. equality and human self-respect. Insufficiency of Stage 6 logical thinking: Our scruples is non an infallible usher to behaviour because it works harmonizing to the rules we have adopted. Furthermore. who or what determines these cosmopolitan rules? Although moral logical thinking does non needfully take to moral action. the latter is based in portion on one’s capacity to ground about moral picks. Kohlberg was more concerned with the logical thinking of the action than the action itself. And that concluding when acted upon becomes our motive. II – ETHICAL RELATIVISM * Cultural Relativism ( sociological relativism ) : The descriptive position that different groups of people have different moral criterions for measuring Acts of the Apostless as right or incorrect. A. Therefore. it is non an ethical doctrine–it’s a sociological or experimental conclusion–even so ; the position is slightly equivocal. B. For illustration. different groups might hold the same basic moral rule. but apply the rule in radically different state of affairss. 1. A 2nd sense of cultural relativism is less obvious. I. e. . that different civilizations differ on basic moral rules. 2. A possible ground for the observation of cultural relativism is shown by the illustration of basic moral rules which could be said to back up different moral regulations harmonizing to the readings of different civilizations. In the undermentioned diagrams. there are two immensely different readings listed for each moral rule. * Ethical Relativism: the normative position that ( 1 ) different groups of people ought to hold different ethical criterions for measuring Acts of the Apostless as right or incorrect. ( 2 ) these different beliefs are true in their several societies. and ( 3 ) these different beliefs are non cases of a basic moral rule. A. The ethical relativist frequently derives support for his place by two basic errors: 1. The relativist confuses cultural ( or sociological ) relativism with ethical relativism. but cultural relativism is a descriptive position and ethical relativism is a normative position. ( E. g. . cultural relativismdescribes the manner the manner people really behave. and ethical relativism prescribes the manner people ought to act. 2. The ethical relativist frequently argues as follows: â€Å"An absolute ethical criterion has neer been proved beyond uncertainty in the history of idea. Thus. an absolute ethical criterion does non be. † This statement is an case ad ignorantiam false belief. P is unproven ; not-p is true. From the fact that a statement has non been proved. we can logically pull no decision. B. Expostulations to ethical relativism. 1. The Differing Ideals Objection ( or. as it is sometimes called. the lingual expostulation ) : it is inconsistent to state that the same pattern is considered right in one society and considered incorrect in another. ( If â€Å"right† and â€Å"wrong† are to hold consistent significance. so the footings must be used in the same manner. ) Possible counter-objections ( by the ethical relativist ) : a. The relativist sometimes states that â€Å"right† and â€Å"wrong† have no consistent significance. These words reflect merely emotion or possibly the ceremonial usage of linguistic communication. In other words. this defence shades into ethical subjectivism. Counter-counter-objection ( by ethical absolutist ) : The job with believing that â€Å"right† and â€Å"wrong† have no consistent significance is the ordinary usage of words in this instance consequences in nonsense. What would go on if people used the same word in different state of affairss to mention to different things? Communication would non take topographic point. B. Some ethical relativists believe ethical words are reducible to non-ethical values ; e. g. . these words have to make with recommendations for endurance or wellbeing. Counter-counter-objection ( by ethical absolutist ) : the job here is merely the trouble of understanding the nature of a non-ethical value. Would a non-ethical value be an aesthetic value? c. Some relativists believe we can warrant relativism by intuition. disclosure. authorization. etc. Counter-counter-objection ( by ethical absolutist ) : these efforts are subjectively based ; they differ from clip to clip and topographic point to topographic point. 2. Mental Health Objection to ethical relativism ( from the definition or standard of a group ) : If â€Å"what is right in one group is incorrect in another. † where precisely does one group terminal and another Begin? Counter-objections to the Mental Health Objection ( by the relativist ) : * Right and incorrect are to be determined in the state of affairs. * Right and incorrect are to be determined by what the bulk determine at the clip and topographic point. * Right and incorrect are finally established by power or authorization. 3. Ad Populum Objection to the relativist’s belief that moralss is established by what most people believe: Simply because most people think something is right does non thereby do it right. Simply because most people think a statement is true does notmake that statement true Counter-objections to the ad populum expostulation ( by the relativist ) : a. The same trouble of set uping the significance of â€Å"right† and â€Å"wrong† issues for the absolutist. pari passu. The absolutist has been unable to province a universally agreed upon intending to the footings. ( Notice that this response is a discrepancy of the ad hominem- tu quoque. ) B. Other solutions to the inquiries of the significance of cardinal ethical footings harmonizing to the relativist are possible by appealing to survival value. consensus gentium. and so on 4. Moral Progress Expostulation: If ethical relativism were right. there could be no such thing as moral betterment or intent in civilizations or a person’s life. To hold betterment. we must hold a criterion by which to judge the difference in moral values. Counter-objections ( by the relativist ) : a. That’s correct–we can do no such judgement that one society is better than another. We could merely judge by our ain values. B. If something like â€Å"survival value† is used to anchor moral beliefs. so moral betterment might be identified with â€Å"increased cognition refering endurance of the society. † * Ethical Absolutism: the normative position that there are basic or cardinal ethical rules which are true without making or exclusion as to clip. status. or circumstance. * Ethical Nihilism: the position that ethical footings such as â€Å"right† and â€Å"wrong† have no significance or are nonsensical. A. Expostulation: but something is meant when we say. â€Å"X is incorrect. † Counter-objections ( by the nihilist ) : 1. If there is no empirical significance to the footings. they have no â€Å"cash value. † ( Q. v. . positivism. ) 2. â€Å"Whatever can be said. can be said clearly. † The load of cogent evidence that the footings have significance is on the non-nihilist. * Ethical Incredulity: the position that ethical footings such as â€Å"right† and â€Å"wrong† might hold intending but their significance can non be established. A. Expostulation to incredulity at this point is methodological. Ethical incredulity should non be held a priori at the beginning of an probe but should merely be a possible result after a thorough survey.