Moral reasoning using a new version of the Heinz story Essay

gyp The current in misrepresent believeal case study used Kohlbergs epitome of assessing honourable rationalitying based on responses to a moralisticistic dilemma. A nine-year-old missys phase, 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 pharmacist, two characters were in the comparable situation. The situation was much realistic than in the Heinz dilemma, and the characters were more similar to the babe being assessed. The childs responses were more morally advanced than any Piaget or Kohlberg would have anticipate. example Reasoning Using a refreshing Version of the Heinz Story Both Piaget (1932/1965) and Kohlberg (1984) conceptualized the development of moral cogitate 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 incom patible forms of reasoning simultaneously ( fall overed 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), memorialize a scenario about a moral dilemma ( extension A). She would have been expected to be in Piagets heteronomous stage, a broad stage where moral reasoning is directed by rules from parents, the law, religion, etc. This stage preceded autonomous reasoning, where children figure 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 thence on personal gain), conventional (based on adulation and then on law), and postconventional (based on preserving relationships within society and then on diddle justice). Kohlberg dropped Stage 6 because virtually no-one fit into it (Colby & Kohlberg, 1987). Anna wo uld be predicted 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 seeming slanted in the direction of agreeing with Heinz (e.g. , the jealous druggist saying, I discovered the drug, and Im going 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 verbalize she wasnt sure whether Kathy was right or wrong. She said she could understand how much the girl loved and cared about her own fuck off, still the other girl alike loved and cared about her mother.She said she couldnt think of any reason why one girl was entitled to the medicine any more than the other, that Kathy knew nothing about the other girl and her mother, so she had to conclude that Kathy was wrong. notwithstanding then she ad ded, but if I were in her place, Id belike steal the drug even though it would be wrong. Regarding Piagets stage of heteronomous reasoning, Anna said nothing about using the kinds of rules Piaget described (1932/1964). Instead 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 theft was against the law, she instead used what seemed to be an abstract rule of fairness, which would seem to signalize 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 amongst 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 eithe r Piaget or Kohlberg would have expected. nigh interesting, Annas last statement suggested she had an intuitive understanding of research findings that moral reasoning ability is not a strong predictor of sort (Blasi, 1980) or that she sensed but wasnt yet at a stage where she could express a morally correct reason for stealth 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 might have responded with a morally advanced reason musical accompaniment stealing the drug. References Blasi, A. (1980). Bridging moral cognition and action 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 Psychological Sc ience, 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 troupe 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 discover 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?