1002 Moral Reasoning 2MORAL REASONING • Definition of Moral Reasoning • Kohlberg’s Three Levels of Moral

Development • Components of Moral Reasoning • Situations that call for moral reasoning • Obstacles to recognizing an ethically

salient situation 3Definition of Moral Reasoning It is the reasoning process by which

human behaviors, institutions, or

policies are judged to be in

accordance with or in violation of

moral standards. Moral reasoning is the process of determining

right or wrong in a given situation.

http://www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.php?term=Moral %20Reasoning#ixzz4ZHUXwOtH Moral Development Velasquez 2012: p. 38 Lawrence Kohlberg, the American

psychologist: people develop through

three levels of moral reasoning as

needed by situations they encounter.

Within these 3 levels, he concluded that

there is a sequence of six identifiable

stages in the development of a person’s

ability to deal with moral issues. Kohlberg’s theory helps us understand how our moral

capacities develop and reveals how we may mature in our

understanding of our own moral standards. 4 5Three Levels of Moral Development A person has reached the highest level when

they make moral choices based on social

contracts, or unspoken agreements to behave a

certain way, and when they can generalize

ethical principles beyond their own interests.

At the second level a person perceives an absolute

right and wrong and believes the law is the judge of

morality. The lowest level involves making decisions of morality by

trying to avoid getting punished.

http://www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.php?te rm=Moral%20Reasoning#ixzz4ZHUXwOtH Kohlberg’s Three Levels of Moral Development

Velasquez 2012: p. 38-39 Stages of OrientationLevels 6. Universal Moral Principles 5. Social contract III. Postconventional Shared standards,

rights and duties

4. Law and order 3. Interpersonal concordance II. Conventional Performing right roles 2. Instrumental 1. Punishment and Obedience I. Preconventional Values in external

events 6 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bounwXLkme4 Trump says paying little tax was legal 7 Donald Trump is acknowledging that he has "legally used the

tax laws to my benefit.'' The Republican presidential

candidate said Monday in Colorado that in private business,

he "brilliantly used those laws'' to "pay as little tax as legally

possible'' during turbulent economic times. But he added, "I

work for you now. I'm not working for Trump,'' and intends to

use his tax law expertise to "fix'' the complexity of the law. The Standard, Oct 4, 2016 10:52

http://www.thestandard.com.hk/breaking-news.php?id=80312 He spoke in the wake of a New York Times

report that said he reported losing more than

US$900 million, which legally could have helped

him avoid paying taxes for nearly two decades.

He did not say the article was correct, and did

not dispute it. Heinz Dilemma - Kohlberg's stages of Moral

Development 8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxJ07klMhr0 9A woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There

was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a

form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently

discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist

was charging ten times what the drug cost him to produce. He

paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose

of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to

everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get

together about $1,000, which is half of what it cost. He told

the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it

cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said, "No, I

discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it." So

Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the

drug for his wife. Should Heinz have broken into the

laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not? Heinz dilemma A dilemma that Kohlberg used in his original research was the druggist's

dilemma: Heinz Steals the Drug In Europe. Kohlberg, Lawrence (1981). Essays on Moral Development, Vol. I: The Philosophy of

Moral Development. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row. ISBN 0-06-064760-4. Kohlberg’s Six Stages of Moral Development Which Stage does each

statement represent?

(1 to 6) Put yourself into Heinz’s position, and think about what Heinz should do and why.

Indicate which statements you agree with (A), disagree with (D), or are neutral about

(N).

A. Heinz should not steal the medicine, because he will consequently be

put in prison.

B. Heinz should steal the medicine, because saving a human life is a

more fundamental value than the property rights of another person. C. Heinz should not steal the medicine, because others may need the

medicine just as badly, and their lives are equally significant. D. Heinz should steal the medicine, because everyone has a right to

choose life, regardless of the law. E. Heinz should not steal the medicine, because the scientist has a right

to fair compensation.

F. Heinz should not steal the medicine, because the law prohibits

stealing making it illegal. G. Heinz should steal the medicine, because his wife expects it; he

wants to be a good husband.

H. Heinz should steal the medicine, because he will be much happier if

he saves his wife, even if he will have to serve a prison sentence. 10 Heinz Dilemma - Kohlberg's stages of Moral Development (Interactive Animation)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5czp9S4u26M http://www.cuyamaca.edu/courtneyhammond/word/justiceversuscare.doc 11 Kohlberg’s Six Stages of Moral Development

Which stage does each

answer belong to?Heinz’s possible answers 1 Punishment

and Obedience A. Heinz should not steal the medicine, because he will consequently be

put in prison.

6 Universal Moral

Principles B. Heinz should steal the medicine, because saving a human life is a

more fundamental value than the property rights of another person 6 Universal Moral

Principles C. Heinz should not steal the medicine, because others may need the

medicine just as badly, and their lives are equally significant.

5 Social contractD. Heinz should steal the medicine, because everyone has a right to choose life, regardless of the law 5 Social contractE. Heinz should not steal the medicine, because the scientist has a right to fair compensation.

4 Law and orderF. Heinz should not steal the medicine, because the law prohibits stealing

making it illegal.

3 Interpersonal

concordance G. Heinz should steal the medicine, because his wife expects it; he wants

to be a good husband.

2 Instrumental

and Relative H. Heinz should steal the medicine, because he will be much happier if

he saves his wife, even if he will have to serve a prison sentence.

12 From. a theoretical point of view, it is not important what the participant thinks that Heinz should do.

Kohlberg's theory holds that the justification the participant offers is what is significant, the form of

their response. Below are some of many examples of possible arguments that belong to the six

stages: Stage one (obedience): Heinz should not steal the medicine because he would consequently be

put in prison, which would mean he is a bad person. Or: Heinz should steal the medicine because it is only worth $200, not how much the druggist

wanted for it. Heinz had even offered to pay for it and was not stealing anything else. Stage two (self-interest): Heinz should steal the medicine because he will be much happier if he

saves his wife, even if he will have to serve a prison sentence.

Or: Heinz should not steal the medicine because prison is an awful place, and he would

probably experience anguish over a jail cell more than his wife's death. Stage three (conformity): Heinz should steal the medicine because his wife expects it; he wants to

be a good husband. Or: Heinz should not steal the drug because stealing is bad and he is not a criminal; he tried

to do everything he could without breaking the law, you cannot blame him. Stage four (law-and-order): Heinz should not steal the medicine because the law prohibits stealing,

making it illegal. Or: Heinz should steal the drug for his wife but also take the prescribed punishment for the

crime as well as paying the druggist what he is owed. Criminals cannot just run around

without regard for the law; actions have consequences. Stage five (soci): Heinz should steal the medicine because everyone has a right to choose life,

regardless of the law. Or: Heinz should not steal the medicine because the scientist has a right to compensation.

Even if his wife is sick, it does not make his actions right. Stage six (universal human ethics): Heinz should steal the medicine, because saving a human life

is a more fundamental value than the property rights of another person. Or: Heinz should not steal the medicine, because others may need the medicine just as badly,

and their lives are equally significant http://www.academia.edu/6536117/Kohlberg_moral_stage_development_theoretical_assumption_with_Henza_dillama_and_major_critics Heinz Dilemma - Kohlberg's stages of Moral Development Most managers rely on decision

criteria associated with moral

reasoning at stages 3 and 4.

13 Managers’ Moral Reasoning (Lawrence and Weber 2011: p. 86) What does this mean? 14 Components of Moral Reasoning Evidence or

information Moral judgment Moral Standards 15 Components of Moral Reasoning Moral reasoning always involves three components: (1) An understanding of our moral standards and what they

require, prohibit, value, or condemn; (2) Evidence or information about whether a particular person,

policy, institution, or behavior has the features that these

moral standards require, prohibit, value, or condemn; and

(3) A conclusion or moral judgment that the person, policy,

institution or behavior is prohibited or required, right or

wrong, just or unjust, valuable or condemnable, and so on. 16 Example of Moral Reasoning A society is unjust if it does not treat minorities

equal to whites (discrimination that prevents

minorities from getting out of their society what

they contribute is unjust) Moral

Standards In American society, minorities take the dirty jobs

but do not get society’s benefits. 26% of blacks

and 25% of Hispanics fall below the poverty line

as compared with 12% of Whites … U.S. society is unjust

(regarding discrimination) Factual

information Moral

judgment Evidence or

information Moral judgment Moral Standards 17 Your Example of Moral Reasoning No

discrimination Being honestFreedom of choiceFood safety PWC asks female

staff to wear

high heels Goods with

faked materialBundle sales Sanlu’s poisoned milk powder Wrong,

Discriminating Wrong,

dishonest Wrong, no

freedomWrong, unsafe 18 Evaluating the Rigour of Moral Reasoning 1. Moral reasoning must be logical – We should

understand the person’s moral standards,

evidence the person offers to support his/her

conclusion, and the person’s conclusion.

• The person’s moral standards together with

the evidence he/she offers should logically

support his/her conclusion. Criteria that ethicists use to evaluate the rigor (quality) of

moral reasoning: Evidence or

information Moral judgment Moral

Standards 19 2. The factual evidence cited in support of a person’s

judgment must be accurate, relevant, and complete. 3. The moral standards involved in a person’s moral

reasoning must be consistent with each other and with

the other standards and beliefs the person holds.

• Consistency also refers to the requirement that one must be

willing to accept the consequences of applying one’s moral

standards consistently to all persons in similar circumstances. Evaluating the Rigour of Moral Reasoning 1. Recognizing the presence

of an ethical situation

2. Identifying a morally

justifiable course of action 3. Deciding to carry out the

morally justifiable course of

action

4. Actually carrying out the

decision Four Steps Leading to Ethical Behaviour 20 Moral Reasoning

is concerned

mainly with the

second of these

processes This means whether an action is

ethical or not depends on the moral

reasoning process of an individual. 21 We are more likely to recognize ethical situations when we

see situations that involve harm that is concentrated, likely,

proximate (nearby), imminent (coming up), and that

possibly violates our moral standards. Ethically salient situations There are many psychosocial

maneuvers (actions) by which

moral self-sanctions can be

disengaged from inhumane

conduct.

Selective activation and

disengagement of self-sanctions

permits different types of

conduct by people with the

same moral standards. Disengagement of self-sanctions 22 Reading reference: Selective Moral Disengagement in the Exercise of Moral Agency

http://web.stanford.edu/~kcarmel/CC_BehavChange_Course/readings/Additional%20Resour ces/Bandura/bandura_moraldisengagement.pdf a) Euphemistic (inoffensive) labeling,

b) Rationalizing our actions,

c) Diminishing comparisons, d) Displacement of responsibility,

e) Diffusion of responsibility,

f) Disregarding or distorting the harm,

g) Dehumanizing the victim, and

h) Redirecting blame.

Obstacles to recognizing an ethically salient

situation 23 Moral Disengagement

Mechanisms (To rationalize

unethical actions) Reading reference: Selective Moral Disengagement in the Exercise of Moral Agency

http://web.stanford.edu/~kcarmel/CC_BehavChange_Course/readings/Additional%20Re sources/Bandura/bandura_moraldisengagement.pdf a) Euphemistic labeling Euphemistic (委婉的) labeling - the process of

sanitizing (淨化) language in order to detract from the

emotional intensity of the reality being referenced.

Obstacles to recognizing an ethically salient

situation 24 http://engagingpeace.com/?p=35 Song: The Euphemism Song

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5AQts I_0MY The substitution of a mild, indirect, or vague expression

for one thought to be offensive, harsh, or blunt. a) Euphemistic labeling Obstacles to recognizing an ethically salient

situation 25 Department of

War Department of

Defense Firing People Outsourcing,

Let you go “All I did was ….” The substitution of a mild, indirect, or vague expression

for one thought to be offensive, harsh, or blunt. http://animanera82.blogspot.hk/2012/11/rationalizing-our- mistakes.html b) Rationalizing our actions – a process of not

perceiving reality, but of attempting to make reality fit

one’s emotions Obstacles to recognizing an ethically salient

situation 26 Stealing

intellectual

property ‘Freedom of

information’ http://animanera82.blogspot.hk/2012/11/rationalizing-our- mistakes.html c) Diminishing comparisons - people who engage in

reprehensible (shameful) acts make them seem less

objectionable by comparing them to something perceived

as being far worse.

Obstacles to recognizing an ethically salient

situation 27 http://animanera82.blogspot.hk/2012/11/rationalizing-our- mistakes.html There are people worse than

me! d) Displacement (shift) of Responsibility – by obscuring

(covering), or minimizing the agentive role in the harm

one causes.

Obstacles to recognizing an ethically salient

situation 28 “She made me do it.” http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/nov/24/china-executes-milk- scandal-pair e) Diffusion of Responsibility – the phenomena

that one feels less responsible to act in a large

group ‘I was just one of many…’ Obstacles to recognizing an ethically salient

situation 29 f) Disregarding or distorting the harm – people

avoid facing the harm they cause or minimize

it, or the evidence of harm be discredited. Obstacles to recognizing an ethically salient

situation 30 http://cdn.zmescience.com/wp- content/uploads/2013/03/climate-dinosaurs.jpg Nothing went

wrong! g) Dehumanization – people are no longer viewed as

persons with feelings, hopes and concerns but as

subhuman objects (Keen, 1986; Kelman, 1973). Obstacles to recognizing an ethically salient

situation 31 Employees are

our resources! h) Redirecting Blame – people view themselves

as faultless victims driven to injurious conduct

by forcible provocation (被挑釁). Obstacles to recognizing an ethically salient

situation 32 I am a victim!

It is their fault! Competition and conflict between

firms can escalate into ‘warfare’. Only if the:

1. Person caused or helped cause

the injury, or failed to prevent it

when he or she could and should

have. -causality 2. Person did so knowing what he or

she was doing -knowledge 3. Person did so of his or her own

free will -freedom Conditions for a Person (or corporation)

to be Morally Responsible for an Injury Velasquez 2012: p. 57-58 33 34 A Small Case for Discussion: For many years, Nike, Inc. has been

accused of using sweatshops by hiring

child labors to produce footwear and

Clothing Items. Nike has denied the claims

many times, suggesting the company has

no control over sub-contracted factories. 1. Select a relevant moral standard, and

exercise moral reasoning. 2. Do you think Nike is morally responsible

for the sweatshops? Why or why not? 3. What might be the obstacles for Nike to

recognize its problem, if there is any? (You

can look for online resources to answer the questions.) 51作业君版权所有