WK 3 Moral Argument Reasoning

Moral Argument & Reasoning
❖ What is moral reasoning/argument?
A moral argument is a reasoning in which the conclusion is a moral statement. A moral

statement is a statement asserting that an action is right or wrong (moral or immoral) or that a person
or motive is good or bad. In a moral argument, we cannot establish the conclusion without a moral
premise. A standard moral argument has at least one premise that asserts a general moral principle,
at least one premise that is a nonmoral claim, and a conclusion that is a moral statement.
Examples of a Moral Argument
Valid Moral Argument:

1) A human fetus has a brain wave after 25 weeks of gestation. (fact or premise)
2) A human with a brain wave is a person. (connecting fact-value premise)
3) Killing a person is morally wrong. (evaluative premise)
Therefore, killing a fetus with a brain wave is morally wrong. (evaluative)
❖ What are the three (3) forms of moral reasoning?
Kohlberg identified three distinct levels of moral reasoning: preconventional, conventional,

and postconventional.
Kohlberg's theory proposes that there are three levels of moral development, with each level
split into two stages. Kohlberg suggested that people move through these stages in a fixed order,
and that moral understanding is linked to cognitive development. The three levels of moral reasoning
include preconventional, conventional, and postconventional.
By using children's responses to a series of moral dilemmas, Kohlberg established that the
reasoning behind the decision was a greater indication of moral development than the actual answer.
Lawrence Kohlberg (1958) agreed with Piaget's (1932) theory of moral development in
principle but wanted to develop his ideas further.
He used Piaget’s storytelling technique to tell people stories involving moral dilemmas. In
each case, he presented a choice to be considered, for example, between the rights of some
authority and the needs of some deserving individual who is being unfairly treated.
One of the best known of Kohlberg’s (1958) stories concerns a man called Heinz who lived
somewhere in Europe.
Heinz’s wife was dying from a particular type of cancer. Doctors said a new
drug might save her. The drug had been discovered by a local chemist, and the
Heinz tried desperately to buy some, but the chemist was charging ten times the
money it cost to make the drug, and this was much more than the Heinz could
afford.
Heinz could only raise half the money, even after help from family and
friends. He explained to the chemist that his wife was dying and asked if he could
have the drug cheaper or pay the rest of the money later.
The chemist refused, saying that he had discovered the drug and was going
to make money from it. The husband was desperate to save his wife, so later that
night he broke into the chemist’s and stole the drug.
Kohlberg asked a series of questions such as:

1. Should Heinz have stolen the drug?
2. Would it change anything if Heinz did not love his wife?
3. What if the person dying was a stranger, would it make any difference?
4. Should the police arrest the chemist for murder if the woman died?
By studying the answers from children of different ages to these questions, Kohlberg hoped
to discover how moral reasoning changed as people grew older. The sample comprised 72 Chicago
boys aged 10–16 years, 58 of whom were followed up at three-yearly intervals for 20 years
(Kohlberg, 1984).
Each boy was given a 2-hour interview based on the ten dilemmas. What Kohlberg was
mainly interested in was not whether the boys judged the action right or wrong, but the reasons given
for the decision. He found that these reasons tended to change as the children got older.
Kohlberg identified three distinct levels of moral reasoning: preconventional, conventional,
and postconventional. Each level has two sub-stages.
People can only pass through these levels in the order listed. Each new stage replaces the
reasoning typical of the earlier stage. Not everyone achieves all the stages. The 3 levels of moral
reasoning include
Level 1 - Preconventional morality
Preconventional morality is the first stage of moral development and lasts until approximately
age 9. At the preconventional level children don’t have a personal code of morality, and instead
moral decisions are shaped by the standards of adults and the consequences of following or
breaking their rules.
For example, if an action leads to punishment is must be bad, and if it leads to a reward must
be good.
Authority is outside the individual and children often make moral decisions based on the
physical consequences of actions.
• Stage 1. Obedience and Punishment Orientation. The child/individual is good in order to
avoid being punished. If a person is punished, they must have done wrong.
• Stage 2. Individualism and Exchange. At this stage, children recognize that there is not just
one right view that is handed down by the authorities. Different individuals have
different viewpoints.
Level 2 - Conventional morality
Conventional morality is the second stage of moral development and is characterized by an

acceptance of social rules concerning right and wrong. At the conventional level (most adolescents
and adults), we begin to internalize the moral standards of valued adult role models.
Authority is internalized but not questioned, and reasoning is based on the norms of the group
to which the person belongs.
A social system that stresses the responsibilities of relationships as well as social order is
seen as desirable and must, therefore, influence our view of what is right and wrong.
• Stage 3. Good Interpersonal Relationships. The child/individual is good in order to be seen

as being a good person by others. Therefore, answers relate to the approval of
others.
• Stage 4. Maintaining the Social Order. The child/individual becomes aware of the wider
rules of society, so judgments concern obeying the rules in order to uphold the
law and to avoid guilt.
Level 3 - Postconventional morality
Postconventional morality is the third stage of moral development and is characterized by an

individuals’ understanding of universal ethical principles. These are abstract and ill-defined but might
include: the preservation of life at all costs, and the importance of human dignity.
Individual judgment is based on self-chosen principles, and moral reasoning is based on
individual rights and justice. According to Kohlberg this level of moral reasoning is as far as most
people get.
Only 10-15% are capable of the kind of abstract thinking necessary for stage 5 or 6 (post-
conventional morality). That is to say, most people take their moral views from those around them
and only a minority think through ethical principles for themselves.
• Stage 5. Social Contract and Individual Rights. The child/individual becomes aware that
while rules/laws might exist for the good of the greatest number, there are times
when they will work against the interest of particular individuals.
The issues are not always clear-cut. For example, in Heinz’s dilemma, the
protection of life is more important than breaking the law against stealing.
• Stage 6. Universal Principles. People at this stage have developed their own set of moral
guidelines which may or may not fit the law. The principles apply to everyone.
E.g., human rights, justice, and equality. The person will be prepared to act to defend these
principles even if it means going against the rest of society in the process and having to pay the
consequences of disapproval and or imprisonment. Kohlberg doubted few people reached this stage.
Problems with Kohlberg's Methods
• A critique of Kohlberg's theory is that it emphasizes justice to the exclusion of other values
and so may not adequately address the arguments of those who value other moral aspects
of actions. Carol Gilligan, in her book In a Different Voice, has argued that Kohlberg's theory
is excessively androcentric. The point of contention is that Kohlberg's model directs to inferior
morality of women as compared to men, which Carol Gilligan noticed and opposed. Gilligan
researched and constitutes her own model, which later, Kohlberg did not challenge.
Overemphasizes justice: Critics have pointed out that Kohlberg's theory of moral
development overemphasizes the concept of justice when making moral choices. Factors
such as compassion, caring, and other interpersonal feelings may play an important part in
moral reasoning.
• Two glaring weakness in Kohlberg's theory have largely discredited it. (1) The fact that boys
and girls develop at different stages mentally and morally is problematic to his theory. (2)
Also, Kohlberg does not take into account that children of different cultures develop at
different rates.
• Kohlberg is biased against women. This challenge is due to the fact that Kohlberg doesn't
take into account the differences between men and women. For example, women are more
likely to base their explanations for moral dilemmas on concepts such as caring and personal
relationships.

WK 3 Moral Argument Reasoning

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WK 3 Moral Argument Reasoning

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

WK 3 Moral Argument Reasoning

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Moral Argument & Reasoning

❖ What is moral reasoning/argument?

A moral argument is a reasoning in which the conclusion is a moral statement. A moral

Examples of a Moral Argument

Valid Moral Argument:

❖ What are the three (3) forms of moral reasoning?

Kohlberg identified three distinct levels of moral reasoning: preconventional, conventional,

Kohlberg asked a series of questions such as:

Level 1 - Preconventional morality

Level 2 - Conventional morality

Conventional morality is the second stage of moral development and is characterized by an

• Stage 3. Good Interpersonal Relationships. The child/individual is good in order to be seen

Level 3 - Postconventional morality

Postconventional morality is the third stage of moral development and is characterized by an

Problems with Kohlberg's Methods

You might also like