Abstract The existing informal case study used Kohlberg’s paradigm of assessing moral reasoning based on responses to a moral issue. A nine-year-old girl’s level, relative to the expectations of Piaget (1932/1965) and Kohlberg (1984), was assessed.
A fresh version of Kohlberg’s Heinz story was used so that, in contrast to Heinz and the druggist, two characters had been in the same situation. The problem was more realistic within the Heinz dilemma, as well as the characters had been more like the child becoming assessed. The child’s reactions were more morally advanced than possibly Piaget or Kohlberg might have expected. Meaning Reasoning Using a New Type of the Heinz Story The two Piaget (1932/1965) and Kohlberg (1984) conceptualized the development of moral reasoning because hierarchical or in other words that children progress from using one type of reasoning to a different.
While this kind of view have been challenged by simply theories and evidence that children work with different types of reasoning simultaneously (reviewed in Killen, 2007), in the current survey Kohlberg’s paradigm (1984) of using reactions to a moral dilemma to assess a child’s stage of ethical development utilized. A nine-year-girl, “Anna” (fictitious name), browse a situation about a ethical dilemma (Appendix A). She would have been likely to be in Piaget’s “heteronomous” stage, a broad stage where meaningful reasoning can be directed by simply rules – from father and mother, the law, religious beliefs, etc . This kind of stage forwent “autonomous” thinking, where children understand you will discover morally appropriate reasons for disregarding rules.
Kohlberg broke meaning development down into three amounts, with two stages in each: preconventional (based in consequences after which on personal gain), regular (based about approval and then on law), and postconventional (based in preserving human relationships within culture and then upon abstract justice). Kohlberg dropped Stage 6 because virtually no-one squeeze into it (Colby & Kohlberg, 1987). Ould – would be believed to be in the conventional level, either level 3 (approval) or 4 (law).
Appendix A, a brand new version of Kohlberg’s Heinz dilemma (1984), was motivated by the unique version seeming slanted to agreeing with Heinz (e. g., the greedy druggist saying, “… I discovered the drug, and I’m going to make money via it”), appearing unbelievable to current decades (e. g., a small-town druggist inventing a cure), and not especially relevant to children (using adult men, Heinz plus the druggist). Summarizing, Anna initial said the girl wasn’t sure whether Kathy was right or wrong. She explained she could understand how very much the girl cherished and cared for about her own mom, but the other girl as well loved and cared about her mother.
She explained she couldn’t think of any reason why one particular girl was entitled to the medication any more than the other, that Kathy knew nothing regarding the other girl and her mom, so she had to deduce that Kathy was incorrect. But then the lady added, “but if I were in her place, I’d probably take the medicine even though it will be wrong. ” Regarding Piaget’s stage of “heteronomous” thinking, Anna said nothing regarding using the varieties of rules Piaget described (1932/1964). Instead she compared the situations of both ladies, basing her conclusion on the equality of their situations.
As it would seem sensible to conclude your woman knew that stealing was against the law, your woman instead used what seemed to be an abstract rule of fairness, which will would seem to indicate she was using “autonomous” reasoning (Piaget, 1932/1965). Similarly, she said nothing implying concern to get approval or perhaps for laws, as a child at Kohlberg’s periods 3 and 4 could. She chatted not only of just one girl’s personal relationship with her mom, but the relationship the girl realized existed between those the lady didn’t understand, suggesting your woman valued human relationships in the summary. Thus her responses were indicative of stage your five reasoning (Kohlberg, 1984). Were most advanced than either Piaget or Kohlberg would have expected.
Most interesting, Anna’s previous statement suggested she had an intuitive knowledge of research results that ethical reasoning ability is not a strong predictor of patterns (Blasi, 1980) or that she inquired about but wasn’t yet for a level where the girl could share a morally correct reason for stealing the drug (society’s need for solid within-family you possess, strong connection between mothers and children, etc . ). Had Anna read the first Heinz dilemma, based on the obviously money grubbing druggist and caring, hard-working Heinz, your woman might have reacted with a morally advanced cause supporting thieving the medication. References Blasi, A. (1980). Bridging meaningful cognition and action: A crucial review of the literature.
Emotional Review, 88, 1-45. Colby, A., & Kohlberg, D. (1987). The measurement of ethical judgment. Cambridge: Cambridge College or university Press. Killen, M. Children’s social and moral reasoning about exemption.
Current Guidelines in Psychological Science, 16, 32-36. Kohlberg, M. (1984). Documents on meaningful development. San Fransisco: Harper & Row. Piaget, M. (1032/1965). The moral wisdom of the kid. New York: Totally free Press. Appendix A Ethical Dilemma A teenaged girl, Kathy, and her widowed mother lived alone. Kathy’s mother was dying by a rare illness that could be healed by taking a really recently created drug. The drug was so fresh that right now there only was enough for starters patient, and the drug business was ready to provide this to somebody in want. Kathy went to the drug company concurrently as another lady. The different girl explained she required the drug because her mother was dying. Both girls were waiting to schedule an appointment a representative from the drug firm.
While the different girl was in the bathroom, Kathy noticed the door towards the representative’s office was wide open, the room was empty, and she saw the medication. She hesitated but then took the medicine. Should the girl have done that?