Morality And Ethic
10 likes3,025 views
This document discusses different perspectives on morality including conventional morality, ethical relativism, and moral absolutism. It outlines Kohlberg's stages of moral development including the pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional levels. It also discusses the differences between ethical relativism, which holds that morality is culturally determined, and moral absolutism, which believes in universal moral truths. The document concludes that while cultural differences exist, moral judgments can be rationally defended and contradictory judgments must have one correct view.
Morality And Ethic
- 1. C onventional Morality E thical Relativism Seyed Ali Marjaie Jan 2008
- 2. Morality is a vital factor What is the right thing to do? What is the wrong thing to avoid? Is Moral development the same with everyone Stages of development & Kohlberg’s Findings Transcultural and intercultural relativism Moral relativism Vs. moral absolutism What Business has to do? Introduction
- 3. Ethics is a part of Philosophy Evaluates human action Many views on Morality – personal Different countries Different Cultures Different systems of morality No one is better that another Is there a universal morality applicable to all people at all times? Morality and Ethics
- 4. Level 1 (Pre-Conventional) 1. Obedience and punishment orientation 2. Self-interest orientation ( What's in it for me? ) Level 2 (Conventional) 3. Interpersonal accord and conformity ( The good boy/good girl attitude ) 4. Authority and social-order maintaining orientation ( Law and order morality ) Level 3 (Post-Conventional) 5. Social contract orientation 6. Universal ethical principles ( Principled conscience ) Moral Development
- 5. The pre-conventional level of moral reasoning is especially common in children , although adults can also exhibit this level of reasoning. Reasoners in the pre-conventional level judge the morality of an action by its direct consequences. The pre-conventional level consists of the first and second stages of moral development, and are purely concerned with the self in an egocentric manner. pre-conventional
- 6. In Stage one (obedience and punishment driven), individuals focus on the direct consequences that their actions will have for themselves. For example, an action is perceived as morally wrong if the person who commits it gets punished. The worse the punishment for the act is, the more 'bad' the act is perceived to be. In addition, there is no recognition that others' points of view are any different from one's own view. This stage may be viewed as a kind of authoritarianism. Level 1 - Stage I
- 7. Stage two (self-interest driven) espouses the what's in it for me position, right behavior being defined by what is in one's own best interest. Stage two reasoning shows a limited interest in the needs of others, but only to a point where it might further one's own interests, such as you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours. In stage two concern for others is not based on loyalty or intrinsic respect. Lacking a perspective of society in the pre-conventional level, this should not be confused with social contract (stage five), as all actions are performed to serve one's own needs or interests. For the stage two theorist, the perspective of the world is often seen as morally relative. Level 1 - Stage II
- 8. The conventional level of moral reasoning is typical of adolescents and adults. Persons who reason in a conventional way judge the morality of actions by comparing these actions to societal views and expectations. The conventional level consists of the third and fourth stages of moral development. Conventional
- 9. The self enters society by filling social roles . Individuals are receptive of approval or disapproval from other people as it reflects society's accordance with the perceived role. They try to be a good boy or good girl to live up to these expectations, having learned that there is inherent value in doing so. Stage three reasoning may judge the morality of an action by evaluating its consequences in terms of a person's relationships, which now begin to include things like respect, gratitude and the 'golden rule '. Desire to maintain rules and authority exists only to further support these stereotypical social roles. The intentions of actions play a more significant role in reasoning at this stage; 'they mean well Level 2 - Stage 3
- 10. In Stage four (authority and social order obedience driven), it is important to obey laws , dictums and social conventions because of their importance in maintaining a functioning society . Moral reasoning in stage four is thus beyond the need for individual approval exhibited in stage three; society must learn to transcend individual needs. A central ideal or ideals often prescribe what is right and wrong, such as in the case of fundamentalism . If one person violates a law, perhaps everyone would - thus there is an obligation and a duty to uphold laws and rules. When someone does violate a law, it is morally wrong; culpability is thus a significant factor in this stage as it separates the bad domains from the good ones. Level 2 - Stage 4
- 11. The post-conventional level, also known as the principled level , consists of stages five and six of moral development. Realization that individuals are separate entities from society now becomes important. One's own perspective should be viewed before the society's. It is due to this 'nature of self before others' that the post-conventional level, especially stage six, is sometimes mistaken for pre-conventional behaviors. Post-Conventional
- 12. In Stage five (social contract driven), individuals are viewed as holding different opinions and values . Along a similar vein, laws are regarded as social contracts rather than rigid dictums. Those that do not promote the general welfare should be changed when necessary to meet the greatest good for the greatest number of people. This is attained through majority decision , and inevitably compromise . In this way democratic government is ostensibly based on stage five reasoning. Level 3 - Stage 5
- 13. In Stage six (universal ethical principles driven), moral reasoning is based on abstract reasoning using universal ethical principles . Laws are valid only insofar as they are grounded in justice , and that a commitment to justice carries with it an obligation to disobey unjust laws. Decisions are not met hypothetically in a conditional way but rather categorically in an absolute way (see Immanuel Kant's 'categorical imperative '). This can be done by imagining what one would do being in anyone's shoes, who imagined what anyone would do thinking the same. Level 3 - Stage 6
- 14. Morals are universally applicable Moral judgments override other considerations Moral praise is given to moral action Characteristics of Morality
- 15. When any two cultures or any two people hold different moral views of an action, normative ethical relativism claims that both can be right. An action which is right for one person or society, & taken in the same manner, maybe wrong for another person or society, yet both are equally correct. Ethical Relativism is the position that there are no moral absolutes, no moral right & wrong. Instead right & wrong are based in social norms. One advantage of ethical relativism is that it allows for a wide variety of cultures & practice. It also allows people to adapt ethically as the culture, knowledge & technology change in society. Its good & a valid form of relativism. The disadvantage of ethical relativism is that truth, right & wrong & justice are all relative… Ethical Relativism
- 16. Just because the group of people thinks that something is right doesn't make so. Slavery is a good example of this. 200 years ago in American, slavery was the norm and morally acceptable, now it is not. To say that moral judgments are in reality statements of feelings & opinions, is to evade the problem. This doesn't correspond with the moral experience of most people. If the doer of an action & the affected party (say in an instance of theft) are said to express their feelings & not judgments about the act, the aggressor is to be equated with the victim. Secondly we cant never disagree with anyone about the morality of an action. Ethical Relativism (contd.)
- 17. Then again ,people can never be mistaken about their moral judgments. A person may feel negatively about an action in the morning,& positively in the evening,& both feelings maybe correct. It can happen by simply expressing a different emotion about it. Some cultural differences are matters of taste. this offers no basis for moral judgment of right or wrong. Arguing will not change it because taste is not a rational, intellectual matter. Cultural & individual differences exist. They provide no claim of truth or falsehood, and no basis of need for deciding right or wrong. Relativism, Absolutism
- 18. To defined normative ethical relativism on the grounds that moral judgment are culturally determined is rather facile. A simple example is the way most of people in India fined their partner of life through newspapers, websites or community of their own cost. this maybe is normal in India but its totally unacceptable by society in Iran. This is not a case of ethical relativism but that of differing instantiation. No two societies could disagree on the morality of an action, for each holds 'moral‘ to be different as applies to it. It is a fact of moral life that people & societies do disagree with one another on moral matters. Relativism, Absolutism, Pluralism
- 19. It is not claimed that somewhere there is a complete moral system waiting to be found. Moral judgments are judgments that can & must be defended. If there appear to be contradictory judgments about an action, only one of them can be correct. To discover the right judgment it is essential to see which judgment is best supported by the facts, & by rational arguments presented in its defense. Conclusion