Moral reasoning using a new version of the Heinz story Essay

Abstract The current informal case guinea pig apply Kohlbergs paradigm of assessing honourable ratiocination based on responses to a moral dilemma. A nine-year-old girls constitute, relative to the expectations of Piaget (1932/1965) and Kohlberg (1984), was assessed. A new version of Kohlbergs Heinz story was used so that, unlike Heinz and the druggist, two characters were in the similar situation. The situation was more realistic than in the Heinz dilemma, and the characters were more alike to the child being assessed. The childs responses were more morally advanced than either Piaget or Kohlberg would get hold of expected.Moral Reasoning Using a in the raw Version of the Heinz Story two Piaget (1932/1965) and Kohlberg (1984) conceptualized the development of moral argument as hierarchical in the sense that children progress from using one form of reasoning to another. While this view has been challenged by theories and evidence that children use different forms of reaso ning simultaneously (reviewed in Killen, 2007), in the current report Kohlbergs paradigm (1984) of using responses to a moral dilemma to assess a childs stage of moral development was used.A nine-year-girl, Anna (fictitious name), read a scenario about a moral dilemma ( concomitant A). She would own been expected to be in Piagets heteronomous stage, a broad stage where moral reasoning is directed by rules from p atomic number 18nts, the law, religion, etc. This stage preceded autonomous reasoning, where children take in there are morally correct reasons for breaking rules.Kohlberg broke moral development down into three levels, with two stages in each preconventional (based on consequences and then on personal gain), conventional (based on approval and then on law), and postconventional (based on preserving human relationships within society and then on abstract justice). Kohlberg dropped Stage 6 because virtually no-one get into it (Colby & Kohlberg, 1987). Anna would be predi cted to be at the conventional level, either stage 3 (approval) or 4 (law). Appendix A, a new version of Kohlbergs Heinz dilemma (1984), was motivated by the original version presumable slanted in the direction of agreeing with Heinz (e.g. , the greedy druggist saying, I discovered the drug, and Im spill to make money from it), seeming unbelievable to current generations (e. g. , a small-town druggist inventing a cure), and not particularly relevant to children (using adult men, Heinz and the druggist). Summarizing, Anna first said she wasnt sure whether Kathy was right or wrong. She said she could understand how much the girl love and cared about her own mother, but the other girl also loved and cared about her mother.She said she couldnt think of any reason why one girl was authorise to the medicine any more than the other, that Kathy knew naught about the other girl and her mother, so she had to conclude that Kathy was wrong. except then she added, but if I were in her plac e, Id probably steal the drug unconstipated though it would be wrong. Regarding Piagets stage of heteronomous reasoning, Anna said nothing about using the kinds of rules Piaget described (1932/1964). sort of she compared the situations of both girls, basing her conclusion on the equality of their situations.Since it would seem reasonable to conclude she knew that stealing was against the law, she instead used what seemed to be an abstract rule of fairness, which would seem to indicate she was using autonomous reasoning (Piaget, 1932/1965). Similarly, she said nothing indicating concern for approval or for laws, as a child at Kohlbergs stages 3 and 4 would. She spoke not only of one girls personal relationship with her mother, but the relationship the girl knew existed between those she didnt know, suggesting she valued human relationships in the abstract.Thus her responses were indicative of stage 5 reasoning (Kohlberg, 1984). They were more advanced than either Piaget or Kohlber g would have expected. Most interesting, Annas last program line suggested she had an intuitive understanding of research findings that moral reasoning ability is not a well-set forecaster of behavior (Blasi, 1980) or that she sensed but wasnt yet at a stage where she could have a bun in the oven a morally correct reason for stealing the drug (societys need for strong within-family bonds, strong attachment between mothers and children, etc.).Had Anna read the original Heinz dilemma, based on the obviously greedy druggist and caring, hard-working Heinz, she qualification have responded with a morally advanced reason supporting stealing the drug. References Blasi, A. (1980). Bridging moral cognition and bodily process A critical review of the literature. Psychological Review, 88, 1-45. Colby, A. , & Kohlberg, L. (1987). The measurement of moral judgment. Cambridge Cambridge University Press. Killen, M.Childrens social and moral reasoning about exclusion. Current Directions in Ps ychological Science, 16, 32-36. Kohlberg, L. (1984). Essays on moral development. San Fransisco Harper & Row. Piaget, J. (1032/1965). The moral judgment of the child. New York Free Press. Appendix A Moral Dilemma A teenaged girl, Kathy, and her widowed mother lived alone. Kathys mother was dying from a rare illness that could be cured by taking a very recently developed drug.The drug was so new that there only was enough for one patient, and the drug company was willing to provide it to someone in need. Kathy went to the drug company at the same time as another girl. The other girl said she needed the drug because her mother was dying. Both girls were waiting to speak with a representative from the drug company. While the other girl was in the restroom, Kathy detect the door to the representatives office was open, the room was empty, and she saw the drug. She hesitated but then stole the drug. Should she have done that?