Presentation on theme: "STRUCTURALISM: MORAL DEVELOPMENT QUESTION: WHERE DOES NOVELTY COME FROM? HOW DOES A CHILD DEVELOP A SYSTEM OF MORALS?"— Presentation transcript:
STRUCTURALISM: MORAL DEVELOPMENT QUESTION: WHERE DOES NOVELTY COME FROM? HOW DOES A CHILD DEVELOP A SYSTEM OF MORALS?
THREE METAPHORS FOR ANSWERS TO THE QUESTION CHILD BORN GOOD ROUSSEAU ROLE OF SOCIETY: DON ’ T CORRUPT CHILD BORN EVIL ORIGINAL SIN FREUD ROLE OF SOCIETY: PUT CONTROLS ON CHILD CHILD BORN NEUTRAL SKINNER ROLE OF SOCIETY: PROVIDE POSITIVE ENVIRONMENT THAT GETS INTERNALIZED
STRUCTURALIST APPROACH TO MORAL DEVELOPMENT WHAT ARE THE BASIC TENETS OF THE STRUCTURALIS APPROACH?
STRUCTURALIST APPROACH TO MORAL DEVELOPMENT UNIVERSAL DEVELOPMENT INVARIANT SEQUENCE OF STRUCTURES QUALITATIVE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN STRUCTURES
STRUCTURALIST APPROACH TO MORAL DEVELOPMENT PROBLEM WITH UNIVERSAL MORAL DEVELOPMENT? ENORMOUS DIVERSITY WHERE IS UNIVERSALITY?
STRUCTURALIST APPROACH TO MORAL DEVELOPMENT KOHLBERG ARGUES THAT THERE ARE 25 UNIVERSAL ASPECTS TO MORAL JUDGMENTS COMMON TO ALL CULTURES PROPERTY RIGHTS PUNISHMENT CONSIDERING MOTIVES IN JUDGING ACTIONS CONSIDERING CONSEQUENCES IN JUDGING ACTIONS CONTRACT
METHODOLOGY GIVE A PERSON A HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION IN STORY FORM STORY CONTAINS A MORAL DILEMMA ASK THE PERSON TO JUDGE ANOTHER ’ S ACTIONS (JUDGMENT) ASK THE PERSON TO JUSTIFY HIS/HER JUDGMENT WHY DO YOU THINK … ?
METHODOLOGY PEOPLE ’ S DEVELOPMENTAL STAGE IS DETERMINED BY THEIR JUSTIFICATIONS
EXAMPLE OF METHODOLOGY HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION: In Europe, a woman was near death from cancer. One drug might save her, a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The druggist was charging $2,000, ten times what the drug cost him to make. The sick woman ’ s husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could get together about half of what it cost.
EXAMPLE OF METHODOLOGY HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION (continued) He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay it later. But the druggist said, “ no. ” The husband got desperate and broke into the man ’ s store to steal the drug for his wife.
EXAMPLE OF METHODOLOGY MORAL DILEMMA: STEALING VERSUS SAVING A LIFE JUDGMENT: SHOULD THE HUSBAND HAVE STOLEN? JUSTIFICATION: WHY DO YOU THINK HE SHOULD HAVE/SHOULD NOT HAVE STOLEN?
EXAMPLE OF METHODOLOGY IF KOHLBERG BASED HIS STAGE ANALYSIS ON JUDGMENTS, THERE WOULD BE TWO STAGES YES STEAL NO STEALING KOHLBERG BASED STAGE ANALYSIS ON PEOPLE ’ S JUSTIFICATIONS PEOPLE AT DIFFERENT STAGES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT COULD GIVE THE SAME JUDGMENT BUT JUSTIFY IT WITH DIFFERENT LEVEL JUSTIFICATIONS
LEVELS AND STAGES OF MORAL REASONING THREE LEVELS AND SIX STAGES LEVEL 1 STAGE 1 STAGE 2 LEVEL 2 STAGE 3 STAGE 4 LEVEL 3 STAGE 5 STAGE 6
LEVELS AND STAGES OF MORAL REASONING: STAGE 1 LEVEL 1: MORAL VALUE RESIDES IN EXTERNAL EVENTS OR PHYSICAL NEEDS RATHER THAN IN PEOPLE AND STANDARDS STAGE 1: ORIENTATION TO OBEDIENCE AND PUNISHMENT DEFERENCE TO SUPERIOR POWER OR PRESTIGE AVOID TROUBLE SO AS NOT TO BE IN A POSITION WHERE YOU CAN BE PUNISHED RESPONSIBILITY IN OBJECTIVE SITUATION (RESULTS) NOT IN SUBJECTIVE INTENTIONS
LEVELS AND STAGES OF MORAL REASONING: STAGE 1 TYPICAL STAGE 1 JUSTIFICATIONS, RELATING TO ACTION MOTIVATED BY AVOIDANCE OF PUNISHMENT PRO: If you let your wife die, you will get into trouble. You ’ ll be blamed for not spending your money to save her and there will be an investigation of you and the druggist for your wife ’ s death. CON: You should not steal the drug because you ’ ll be caught and sent to jail if you do. If you do get away, your conscience would bother you thinking how the police would catch you at any minute.
LEVELS AND STAGES OF MORAL REASONING: STAGE 2 STAGE 2: NAIVELY EGOISTIC ORIENTATION CORRECT ACTION TO TAKE IS ONE THAT SERVES ONE ’ S NEEDS AND OCCASIONALLY OTHERS ’ SOME AWARENESS OF RELATIVITY OF VALUES EACH PERSON ’ S NEEDS OTHERS ’ PERSPECTIVES QUASI-EGALITARIANISM AND ORIENTATION TO EXCHANGE AND RECIPROCITY
LEVELS AND STAGES OF MORAL REASONING: STAGE 2 TYPICAL STAGE 2 JUSTIFICATIONS, RELATING TO ACTION MOTIVATED BY DESIRE FOR REWARD OR BENEFIT. POSSIBLE GUILT REACTIONS ARE IGNORED AND PUNISHMENT IS VIEWED IN A PRAGMATIC MANNER. DIFFERENTIATES OWN FEAR, PLEASURE, OR PAIN FROM PUNISHMENT-CONSEQUENCES PRO: If you do happen to get caught you could give the drug back and you wouldn ’ t get much of a sentence. It wouldn ’ t bother you much to serve a little jail term if you have your wife when you get out. CON: He may not get much of a jail term if steals the drug, but his wife will probably die before he gets out so it won ’ t do him much good. If his wife dies, he shouldn ’ t blame himself. It wasn ’ t his fault that she has cancer.
LEVELS AND STAGES OF MORAL REASONING: STAGE 3 LEVEL 2 MORAL VALUES RESIDING IN PERFORMANCE OF GOOD AND RIGHT ROLES MAINTAINING THE CONVENTIONAL ORDER MAINTAINING EXPECTANCIES OF OTHERS STAGE 3: GOOD BOY ORIENTATION ORIENTATION TO APPROVAL AND PLEASING AND HELPING OTHERS CONFORMITY TO STEREOTYPICAL IMAGES OF THE MAJORITY JUDGMENTS MADE ACCORDING TO INTENTIONS
LEVELS AND STAGES OF MORAL REASONING: STAGE 3 TYPICAL JUSTIFICATION OF STAGE 3 INDIVIDUALS WHERE ACTION IS MOTIVATED BY DISAPPROVAL OF OTHERS, ACTUAL OR HYPOTHETICAL (GUILT) THERE IS A DIFFERENTIATION OF DISAPPROVAL FROM PUNISHMENT, FEAR, OR PAIN
LEVELS AND STAGES OF MORAL REASONING: STAGE 3 PRO: Nobody will think you ’ re bad if you steal the drug but your family will think you ’ re an inhuman husband if you don ’ t. If you let your wife die, you ’ ll never be able to look anybody in the face again. CON: It isn ’ t just the druggist who will think you are a criminal, everyone else will, too. After you steal it, you ’ ll feel bad thinking about how you ’ ve brought dishonor on your family and yourself. You won ’ t be able to face anyone again.
LEVELS AND STAGES OF MORAL REASONING: STAGE 4 STAGE 4: AUTHORITY AND SOCIAL ORDER MAINTAINING ORIENTATION ORIENTATION TO DOING ONE ’ S DUTY AND TO SHOW RESPECT FOR AUTHORITY MAINTAINING THE SOCIAL ORDER FOR ITS OWN SAKE REGARD FOR EARNED EXPECTATIONS OF OTHERS
LEVELS AND STAGES OF MORAL REASONING: STAGE 4 TYPICAL JUSTIFICATIONS FOR STAGE 4, WHERE ACTION IS MOTIVATED BY ANTICIPATION OF DISHONOR INSTITUTIONAL BLAME FOR FAILURE OF DUTY GUILT OVER CONCRETE HARM DONE TO OTHERS DIFFERENTIATES FORMAL DISHONOR FROM INFORMAL DISAPPROVAL DIFFERENTIATES GUILT FOR BAD CONSEQUENCES FROM DISAPPROVAL
LEVELS AND STAGES OF MORAL REASONING: STAGE 4 PRO: If you have any sense of honor, you won ’ t let your wife die because you ’ re afraid to do the only thing that will save her. You ’ ll always feel guilty that you caused her death if you don ’ t do your duty to her. CON: You ’ re desperate and you may not know you ’ re doing wrong when you steal the drug. But you ’ ll know you did wrong after you ’ re punished and sent to jail. You ’ ll always feel guilty for your dishonesty and lawbreaking
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 3 HAS MORAL VALUES RESIDING IN CONFORMITY BY THE SELF TO SHARED OR SHAREABLE STANDARDS, RIGHTS, OR DUTIES
LEVELS AND STAGES OF MORAL REASONING: STAGE 5 STAGE 5: CONTRACTUAL, LEGALISTIC ORIENTATION RECOGNITION OF ARBITRARY ELEMENT OR STARTING POINT IN RULES OR EXPECTATIONS FOR THE SAKE OF AGREEMENT DUTY DEFINED IN TERMS OF CONTRACT GENERAL AVOIDANCE OF THE WILL OR RIGHTS OF OTHERS MAJORITY WILL AND WELFARE IS AIMED TOWARDS
STAGE 5 JUSTIFICATIONS PRO: The law wasn ’ t set up for these circumstances. Taking the drug in this situation isn ’ t really right, but it ’ s justified to do it. CON: You can ’ t completely blame someone for stealing but extreme circumstances don ’ t really justify taking the law in your own hands. You can ’ t have everyone stealing whenever they get desperate. The end may be good, but the ends don ’ t justify the means.
LEVELS AND STAGES OF MORAL REASONING: STAGE 6 CONSCIENCE OR PRINCIPLE ORIENTATION ORIENTATION NOT ONLY TO ACTUAL SOCIAL RULES BUT TO PRINCIPLES OF CHOICE INVOLVING APPEAL TO LOGICAL UNIVERSALITY AND CONSISTENCY ORIENTATION TO CONSCIENCE AS A DIRECTING AGENT DIRECTING AGENT MUTUAL RESPECT AND TRUST
STAGE 6 JUSTIFICATIONS PRO: This is a situation which forces him to choose between stealing and letting his wife die. In a situation where the choice must be made, it is morally right to steal. He has to act in terms if the principle of preserving and respecting life. CON: Heinz is faced with the decision of whether to consider the other people who need the drug just as badly as his wife. Heinz ought to act not according to his particular feelings toward his wife, but considering the value of all the loves involved.
PROGRESSION BETWEEN LEVELS LEVEL 1 PEOPLE ATTEND TO THEMSELVES LEVEL 2 PEOPLE ATTEND TO OTHERS AND WHAT OTHERS THINK OF THEM LEVEL 3 PEOPLE ATTEND TO SOCIETY ’ S STANDARDS AND THEIR RELATIONS TO THEM AND TO THEIR OWN PRINCIPLES
MECHANISMS OF DEVELOPMENT WHAT DOES KOHLBERG, A STRUCTURALIST, CLAIM ABOUT THE MECHANISMS OF DEVELOPMENT?
MECHANISMS OF DEVELOPMENT DISEQULIBRIUM ADAPTATIONAL ORGANIZATIONAL
RELATIONS BETWEEN PIAGET AND KOHLBERG PIAGET POSITS COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENTAL STRUCTURES ABOUT LOGICO-MATHEMATICAL AND PHYSICAL DOMAINS KOHLBERG POSITS COGNITIVE STRUCTURES ABOUT MORAL REASONING
RELATIONS BETWEEN PIAGET AND KOHLBERG THE DOMAINS OF LOGICO- MATHMATICAL AND PHYSICAL REASONING DEAL WITH THE WORLD OF THE MIND AND OBJECTS THE DOMAIN OF MORAL REASONING DEALS WITH INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS
RELATIONS BETWEEN PIAGET AND KOHLBERG KOHLBERG BELIEVED THAT AN IMPORTANT ASPECT OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT THAT ALSO SEPARATES IT FROM THE PHYSICAL AND MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES IS: EMPATHY AND INDENTIFICATION THE ABILITY TO TAKE ANOTHER ’ S POINT OF VIEW AND TO FEEL AS IF YOU WERE THAT PERSON
RELATIONS BETWEEN PIAGET AND KOHLBERG Langer, Kuhn, and Hahn (1969) TESTED CHILDREN AT DIFFERENT AGES PIAGETIAN TASKS KOHLBERG TASKS
RELATIONS BETWEEN PIAGET AND KOHLBERG FOUND THAT PIAGETIAN STAGES ARE A NECESSARY BUT NOT SUFFICIENT CONDITION FOR KOHLBERG ’ S STAGES EXAMPLE: A STAGE 5 PERSON IN KOHLBERG ’ S SYSTEM “ MUST BE ” IN PIAGET ’ S FORMAL OPERATIONS STAGE BUT A FORMAL OPERATIONS STAGE PERSON COULD BE IN ANY OF KOHLBERG ’ S STAGES
TURIEL THOUGHT THAT KOHLBERG MERGED THE MORAL DOMAIN AND SOCIAL CONVENTIONS TURIEL IS A STRUCTURALIST WHO WORKED ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIAL CONVENTIONS
TURIEL THREE KINDS OF SOCIAL ACTION (MAX WEBER) CUSTOM A PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR EATING BREAKFAST FOOD IN THE MORNING
TURIEL CONVENTION A PART OF CUSTOM THAT IS CONSIDERED BINDING REGULATED BY SANCTIONS OF DISAPPROVAL MODES OF DRESS FORMS OF GREETING