Thursday, February 17, 2011
Moral Issues
Today in class we were discussing the issue of moral development, which include six different stages. We kinda conclude that moral development is influenced by religion, environment, genes and also education. Where do you think moral development is the most visible (school, home, work, public locations) and we where you can easily discover which stage of moral development certain person presents. Connecting to Kohlberg's reading and case involving different points of view, how would you relate to this situation : is it morally "good" to kill one person in order to save hundreds of other people? On which stage of moral development person have to be to resolve in proper way that problem?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I feel that moral development would be most visible in the home, because I feel that the home is the core of our moral understanding and judgment. We learn morals from how we are brought up by our parents and the things we see going on in our surrounding environment. However, I feel that everyone's morals are different, so I do not think there is a definite answer for the "killing one person to save hundreds" question. I do not really understand how you can judge what stage of moral development someone would have to be at to properly choose the right answer when there is no definite right answer. I guess since this is a tough predicament, you would have to be at a higher or the highest level of moral development to resolve it, but I'm unsure if that would guarantee the best result as thought of by everyone else, since their morals could be very different.
ReplyDeleteWhat an intense question, to kill one to save hundreds. I agree with Sarah in saying that there is no definite or even right answer to this question. There are many different ways one could look at the situation, debating the pros and cons of each. Either way, there are cons to either solution. To judge one's morality on one simple decision is unfair, and I don't agree with it at all. As Kohlberg explained, each stage represents something different: better for the society, better for a single person, etc., though who has the right to decide what is best for anyone? I feel that even a stage 6 (if that even exists) would still not be able to make the "right" decision. Merely because there isn't one.
ReplyDeleteThis thought kinda brings me back to the newer version of the movie, "Tron" (if you haven't seen it, you should), because in order to create the "perfect" world, millions were killed in the process. Though the newer world was most efficient, the goodness of humanity disappeared.
Overall, morality is a very complex virtue. There is really no right answer, but there can be an understanding of the goodness and wholeness of a person.
becca - that's exactly what i was attempting to say but I think you said it better. If a stage 6 development does not even guarantee making the correct moral decision, then how would Kohlberg go about explaining this situation? Did he not create enough steps or is it virtually impossible to attain the highest moral development, so he didn't include it?
ReplyDeleteI think moral development is most visible outside of the home. When a person is at school or the workplace they are more prone to face moral decisions, because there are more social pressures present than in the comfort of their own home. You'll be able to see how developed someone is when they are not in their place of comfort.
ReplyDeleteKill one, save a thousand...
I definitely agree that this is a "it depends" kind of question. If I had to choose a stage, I would probably go with Stage 3 when a person is all for the betterment of society as a whole.
I'd have to agree with Jasmine that Stage 3 is probably sufficient for a person to make such a decision, however I'm more inclined to Stage 4. While at Stage 3 people do start considering other's feeling and want to start relationships, Stage 4 signals that that person making the decision cares for the greater good of society. It's true that the choice to kill one for many is a huge decision and unless that stage 3 person is really considering both sides and other's idea it maybe hard. At stage 4 I feel like the only real viable answer would be to stop one person as it is the best way to protect society.
ReplyDeleteWhether this is good or not morality is solely up to the situation. If the person was a bomber perhaps I would say a Stage 3 could make the right decision to save 1000. However what if one person had a deadly disease that would go airborne eventually if the host didn't die? Then I'd leave that one to a stage 4.