Kohlberg Theory of Moral Development Kohlberg 's Theory of Moral Development was based on how people will reason out about moral issues. It 's not important what will be the answer to the dilemma, what important is the reasoning behind that answer. After the study, Kohlberg identified three level, each level with two sub stages. In Level 1, the pre-conventional level, an individual do not speak yet as a member of society. Moral reasoning was based on the consequences of action. In Stage 1 or Punishment and Obedience Orientation, an individual should do good things or should obey the rules to avoid being punished. If the individual is punished he/she must have done something wrong. Example: Rica did not study for the exam, she writes …show more content…
Everyone has his/her own viewpoints therefore each person can pursue his/her individual interest. Exchanging favours are judged in terms of the benefit to the individual. Respondents in this stage still fall at pre-conventional level because they speak for their own interest rather that a member of society. Example: Jared saw Menard steal their sister 's chocolate in the fridge. Menard said that if Jared will not tell to their sister that he steal the chocolate, he will give half of the chocolate to Jared. Jared agreed. Level 2 or the Conventional level, Individual speak as a member of society In Stage 3 or the Good Interpersonal Relationships/Interpersonal Conformity, an individual should do good because that 's what others want them to be. Therefore, answers are related to approval of the others and they believed that people should live up to the expectation of the community. Showing love and respect to others is what good behaviour means to the community. Example: Kayla is a NBSB or no boyfriend since birth but his group of friends are all in a relationship. She decided to date Ulysses even though she did not like him just to say that she has a boyfriend like her …show more content…
There are particular individual that a certain rule may work against them. Stage 4 people want to keep the society functioning, but an ideal society is difficult to achieve. Individual in stage 5 begins to ask what 's a good society is. There are lot of social groups in the society which has different culture and values. But being a rational people, everyone will agree in two things, first, life and liberty should be protected and second changing unfair law should undergo in democratic
ustice, fairness, and decency, abstract concepts that are innate in society and human nature. However, despite their near universal status in humanities mid, they often have different meanings for individuals. Aeschylus uses The Oresteia in order to explore these issues as characters in the play try to determine what it means to be just, what ought a just actor do, and what is the best model for achieving justice. The characters discuss ideas such as vengeance, reciprocity, balance, moderation, and finally the end result of the implied debate leads to a jury system. In this paper I will go over two of the several different interpretations of justice used in the Oresteia and compare and contrast them in order to demonstrate which is the best
The three types of theories of the lawmaking process are rationalistic model, functionalist view, and conflict perspective. Rationalistic model is laws that are created as rational means of protecting the members of society from social harm(s). Functionalist view which was theorized by Emile Durkheim’s, is that laws are an institutionalized custom and need for a society to function as a whole. The final theory is conflict perspective which means laws are put in place for social control. Each one of these three theories both have their own benefits, as well as their flaws in helping to creating law(s).
Level 3 of Kohlberg’s moral development theory is based upon individual rights and universal principles. This level is deemed almost unreachable for the vast majority by Kolberg since it requires a high cognitive level. In Lord of the Flies, by William Golding the only character that exhibits level 3 stage 6: Universal Principles is Simon He quickly realizes that multiple beasts live on the island. Simon comments that “ Maybe there is a beast... What I mean is...
In this level is stage four, which is an authority and social-order-maintaining orientation. At this stage people do things based on rules that have already been set up or come from a place of high importance, for example, the government. Kohlberg said this was “...based on fixed rules, maintaining order and obeying authority” (2). He also said that there is “...a respect for rules [and] laws” (2). A person reflecting this stage will not make up rules to replace ones that already were there, or disobey rules that were already made to be followed.
To begin with, Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development is a way of “how individuals would justify their actions if placed in moral dilemmas” (Wikipedia contributors. “Lawrence Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development”). It has three stages and two categories in each of those. There is Pre-conventional which has the two categories of Obedience/Punishment and Self-interest.
Because of this, she is on the lowest level of Kohlberg 's Stages of Moral Development. Kohlberg 's Stages of Moral Development is a scale that rates how people make decisions and stand for what is right. There are six levels; level one being where young children act, and level six, where few adults ever reach. People at level one make decisions to avoid getting in trouble. People at level six would put their lives on the line for what they believe is right.
Jessie Townsend May 3rd, 2016 Prof. Allen Wong ASOC283 Why Kids Get Life The documentary “When Kids Get Life” delves into four cases involving juveniles who are serving life without parole in Colorado prisons. All of these juveniles are serving this time due to first degree murder among other charges they have received. The ages of these juveniles at the time of their crimes range from fifteen to seventeen and all of them still currently remain incarcerated. By applying different delinquency theories to each case, there is a chance that one could explain or even rationalize why these juveniles committed the crimes that they did.
This is the power stacks of knowledge, ideology/hegemony, and social location have over our thinking and we must begin by understanding others beliefs. Number four is dialectical thinking which is the ability to take two opposite concepts and have a debate. This is intended to resolve differences between the two of them rather than having one as the truth. Lastly, is critical hope which moves toward social justice and derived from a realistic appraisal of conditions with the ability to see a better
The divine command theory, utilitarianism, Kant’s duty defined morality, natural law theory, and Aristotle’s virtue ethics are the five types of ethical theories. The divine command theory states that what is morally right and wrong will be decided by God. Utilitarianism states that “Action “A” is morally right if and only if it produces the greatest amount of overall happiness. Kant’s duty defined morality states that what is important is acting for the sake of producing good consequences, no matter what the act is. Natural law theory states that people should focus on the good and avoid any evil.
Gilligan ( 1997) achieved the conclusion that Kohlbergs hypothesis did not represent the way that ladies approach moral issues from a morals of consideration, instead of a morals of equity point of view, which moves a portion of the essential presumptions of Kohlbergs hypothesis. Additionally Critics have brought up that Kohlbergs hypothesis of good advancement overemphasizes the idea as equity when settling on good decisions. Commentators including Carol Gilligan have recommended that Kohlbergs hypothesis was sexual orientation one-sided since the majority of the subjects in his example were male. Kohlberg trusted that ladies had a tendency to stay at the third level of good advancement since they put a more grounded emphasis on things, for
The two moral reasonings are consequentialist and categorical. Consequentialist means the consequences that will result after whatever you do, whether it is the right or wrong thing to do. Categorical moral reasoning locates morality in certain duties and rights. Somethings are just morally wrong even if it brings good outcomes. According to Mill the principle of utility means realizing a consequence of something before you do it,whether your intentions are good or bad.
Moral theories are theories that help us distinguish between a right or a wrong action. Adequate moral theories help us understand that what we should or shouldn’t do in certain situations. Two of the most famous moral theories are Utilitarianism and Kantianism. According to Utilitarianism, an action is right if only if it out of all the other action gives out the maximum utility. In oppose to that, Kantianism says that an action is right if and only if, in performing that action, the person does not treat anyone as a mean and treats everyone as an end in itself.
Those who are missing this level could fall victim to several dangerous behaviors. Next, the fourth level focuses on esteem and having other people’s respect. Finally, the last level is self-actualization (Taormina & Gao 156). Self-actualization refers to fulfilling ones goals and improving oneself to reach a point of happiness (Textbook 44). Thus, the main ideas of Maslow’s theory are commonly placed into a pyramid to represent the reaching of each
It considers that moral act itself has moral value for example telling the truth is always right even when it may cause harm or pain. This theory is based on the supposed state of nature. According to this theory humans should use their ability of reason to discover how nature is in order to determine how we should act. Golden rule is an example of natural law states that “Do unto others as you would have them do unto
The point is that moral approvals and disapprovals done by our moral sense are specific in nature and only operate when there is an action that can be appropriately judged of by our moral sense. Reasoning and information can change the evaluation of the moral sense, but no amount of reasoning can or does precede the moral sense in regard to its approval of what is for the public good. The moral sense approves of the good for others. This concern for others by the moral sense is what is natural to humankind, Hutcheson contended. Reason gives content to the moral sense, informing it of what is good for others and the public good