Description
I have placed videos illustrating Kohlberg, Carol Gilligan and Piagets ideas on moral development. Please comment on each of these approaches.
Try the Heinz experiment on someone you know and tell us what happened.
It is your turn to ask the questions.
There are so many interesting and controversial issues related to moral development.
Ask a question of your peers. It is the responsibility of each of you to answer one of the questions posed by your peer (do not all answer the same question) and to then respond to the response of one of your classmates.
Be sure to be creative and challenging.
https://youtu.be/YxJ07klMhr0 ~ kohlberg
https://youtu.be/2W_9MozRoKE~ Carol
feedback to student:
Moral development
I have placed videos illustrating Kohlberg, Carol Gilligan and Piagets ideas on moral development. Please comment on each of these approaches.
In the video of the Heinz experiment, it is meant to illustrate Kohlberg’s views on moral development from a man’s point of view. Here, we are able to see how decisions can be reached based on the scenario at hand. Based on the choice made, it outlines the thinking path of a person’s morality.
In the video demonstration of Piagets’s moral development theory, we see a set of twin boys that are playing dominoes with two adults. They are challenging the boys’ thinking and morality by bending the rules and seeing if the boys would do the same if they saw others doing it or if they would remain solid in their beliefs and what they know is essentially right or wrong.
In the final video, Gilligan explains that her theories differ from that of Kohlberg due to him not considering that there is a difference in the moral judgment of men and women. The way in which ken and women reach the decisions they have to make based on morals are both different as they approach the dilemmas from opposing views.
Try the Heinz experiment on someone you know and tell us what happened.
When trying the Heinz experiment on my sister, I slightly changed the scenario. She was told that our family’s home was facing foreclosure if the bank did not receive the balance of money owed. After trying to raise money it was just not enough. The bank was asked to lower the collection fees added on but did not. These are the options she was provided with:
- I told her that I would rob a bank and pay down the money. There would be no consequences because we deserved to live there and our family had been for generations, I never got caught.
- The bank would accept the money and later realize that the money was stolen but already processed so I would face judgment
- We would lose the house and be homeless, all of our family’s money and hard earned work is lost, that’s just the way the cookie crumbles.
She chose the final option of us losing the house and struggling to live. When asked why, she provided the answer, “I would not be able to live without you but I also would not be able to live with you knowing what you’ve done. We had a chance at life like anybody else so why do we deserve to take their hard earned money just to make our lives easier? The point of you stealing the money would be for us to live comfortably but how comfortable is a jail cell? Not to mention another expense.”
From this response, I was able to determine that she falls into conventional morality but specifically the fourth stage. Just because the crime committed is with good faith and good conscience, that does not make it right. How many banks would be robbed and how many other crimes would need to be committed because it’s the “better” or “right” thing to do.
My question to the class:
Why do you believe that dilemmas such as the Heinz experiment have many different outcomes? Do you believe that the Heinz experiment exists to shed light on the possibility of people being motivated purely by selfish need or gain?
