EDS220 Take-Home Midterm l

Buse Karakaş (2509289)

Pandemic and Individual Sacrifices from Piaget’s, Kohlberg’s, Vygotsky’s and

Gilligan’s Perspective

In the last couple of years, as a new virus has entered our lives with its mystery, a

numerous number of factors of the daily life has started to change: we started to wear masks

and use disinfectants more than ever. As Slavoj Zizek analyses it, we could say that even the

international support has grown as countries have sent each other masks, or even doctors.

However, one thing has not changed: the need to make individual sacrifices for the good of

the community as a whole in times of need. People had always faced problems throughout

history in which the only way to get through it was to help each other get through it.

There are many perspectives to analyse whether these individual sacrifices are made,

and if so, why. In the first place, it should be a given deduction that an individual has their

own understanding of what is going on around the world. Thus, based on this perspective,

Piaget would put forth the idea that the individual’s cognitive development plays a crucial

role in comprehending the world-events, with which it’s possible to conclude that the act of

whether someone makes sacrifices for the common good or not is dependent on their

understanding and cognitive development. For instance, a person during the preoperational

phase would not have been able to grasp the need to make individual sacrifices as s/he cannot

see this from others’ perspectives. Secondly, another very crucial point to be made is the fact

that the level, abundance, or lack of cognitive development can determine the individual’s

moral development. In other words, if one does not have the ability to see situations from

others’ perspective in the preoperational stage, one cannot form opinions of what is the right

and the wrong action. Since there is less information and understanding of the situation, there

is less to work with when it comes to making opinions about the moral decisions. For
example, based on Kohlberg’s theory of moral development, someone who hasn’t yet reached

beyond the preoperational level of understanding could have also been stuck at stage 2, a

stage that emphasises the egocentric point of view of the individual.

Moving on to Vygotsky’s sociocultural perspective, we can put forth the same idea

that learning is the basis of understanding, and thus, the basis of moral actions. For instance,

since the social context for learning matters, the individual will shape her/his mind about the

decision to make individual sacrifices such as wearing a mask as to not pose any danger to

those around him/her based on the environment in which s/he grew up in or is in. S/he can opt

to get vaccinated in a situation where many opt for vaccination whereas the opposite situation

may occur where many opt against it. Thus, with this theory, we can say that it can still be

tied to Piaget’s cognitive development with an addition of sociocultural factors.

Gilligan’s theory differs from the theories mentioned above in that it makes gender

distinctions based on the concepts of morality of care versus justice. According to him, a

person of feminine biology might be more inclined to make sacrifices based on her

interpersonal relationships and for the good of those individuals whereas a person of

masculine biology could be inclined to act based on abstract concept of what justice is.

In conclusion, an individual’s cognitive development can force a parallel development

of morals, which can lead us to understand whether certain actions are taken by these

individuals for the goods of others and why based on different theories of Gilligan, Piaget,

Kohlberg, and Vygotsky.

 References

Dilozof. (2020, March 26). Yaşayan Filozoflar Koronavirüs Salgınını Nasıl Yorumluyor?
Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njEAq3jQKGQ