L24 & L25 Flashcards
2 perspectives of morality
- evolutionist approach: development of a trait follows a progressing trajectory where later stages are more advanced
- relativist approach: development of a trait is based on local demands where the outcome is a cultural solution to a cultural problem
no stages or trajectory in relativist approach, thus no solution is better than the others
Kohlberg’s stage theory of morality
an evolutionist perspective
- most influential model of moral reasoning
- universal progression through 3 levels: preconventional, conventional, postconventional
cannot reach next level without passing the previous one
Level 1: preconventional
Kohlberg’s stage theory of morality
morality is a cost-benefit calculation of what provides the best overall return, considering one’s needs and whether one will be punished
e.g. “shouldn’t steal because Heinz will get in trouble”
Level 2: conventional
Kohlberg’s stage theory of morality
morality is following rules, maintaining and facilitating social order
e.g. “Heinz shouldn’t steal, instead he should uphold the law because the law is right”
Level 3: postconventional
Kohlberg’s stage theory of morality
morality is considering abstract, universal ethical principles that emphasize individual rights and freedoms
e.g. “Heinz should steal because allowing someone to die when it can be helped is unfair, regardless of what the law says”
Is there evidence for cross-cultural universality of postconventional thinking?
Kohlberg’s stage theory of morality
- in meta-analysis, all urban societies have at least one adult engaging at postconventional level
- some tribal and indigenous societies show no postconventional level of thinking
Issue with Kohlberg’s stage theory of morality
too much focus on certain forms of moral reasoning assumes that some cultures are less evolved (e.g. tribal and indigenous societies) while others are at the top of the hierarchy
some cultures engage in different kinds of moral reasoning, which prompted the relativist approach
Shweder’s big three
a relativist perspective
there are 3 primary moral codes that different cultural groups emphasize: autonomy, community, divinity
- no one code is better than others
- different codes are more prevalent in different cultures
Code 1: autonomy
Shweder’s big three
- associated with concerns about harm, rights, and justice
- must protect freedoms of individuals as much as possible
- common in individualistic cultural groups
e.g. “Was someone harmed?” or “Did someone have their rights denied?”
Code 2: community
Shweder’s big three
- tied to an individual’s interpersonal obligations
- must protect social order by fulfilling one’s obligations to others
- common in collectivistic cultural groups
e.g. “Did someone show a lack of loyalty?” or “Did someone conform to traditions of society?”
Code 3: divinity
Shweder’s big three
- associated with concerns about sanctity and natural order
- must preserve standards mandated by transcendent authority
- common in collectivistic cultural groups
e.g. “Did someone do something disgusting?” or “Did someone act in a way that God would approve of?”
3 different scenarios used to study Shweder’s big three
How much money would you need to be convinced to…
1. stick a pin into the palm of a child you don’t know (autonomy)
2. marry someone against the wishes of your family (community)
3. act like an animal for a play, including crawling around naked and urinating (divinity)
3 ways to define fairness
Who deserves a resource?
- principle of need: resources are directed to those who need them the most
- principle of equality: resources are shared among all members of a group
- principle of equity: resources are distributed based on people’s individual contributions
Principle of equity in individualistic societies
fairness
- one’s input is proportional to their reward
- meant to increase motivation to work for a reward, which breeds competition
Principle of equality in collectivistic societies
fairness
- everyone gets the same raise but reward those with the longest tenure
- weakens link between individual input and reward, which decreases motivation to work hard
- promotes harmonious relationships by removing intragroup competition