“morals” may be used to refer to specific
beliefs or attitudes that people have or to
describe acts that people perform.
“ethics” can be spoken of as the discipline
of studying and understanding ideal
human behavior and ideal ways of
thinking.
BRANCHES OF ETHICS
- Normative Ethics - The largest
branch, it deals with how
individuals can figure out the
correct moral action that they
should take. Philosophers such as
Socrates and John Stuart Mill are
included in this branch of ethics.
- Meta-Ethics - This branch seeks to
understand the nature of ethical
properties and judgments such as if
truth values can be found and the
theory behind moral principles.
- Applied Ethics - This is the study of
applying theories from
philosophers regarding ethics in
everyday life. For example, this
area of ethics asks questions such
as "Is it right to have an abortion?"
and "Should you turn in your friend
at your workplace for taking home
office supplies?
- Moral Ethics - This branch
questions how individuals develop
their morality, why certain aspects
of morality differ between cultures
and why certain aspects of morality
are generally universal.
- Descriptive Ethics - This branch is
more scientific in its approach and
focuses on how human beings
actually operate in the real world,
rather than attempt to theorize
about how they should operate.
SOURCES OF AUTHORITY
- LAW - It is supposed the law is
one’s guide to ethical behavior. In
the Philippines, Filipinos are
constrained to obey the laws of the
land as stated in country’s criminal
and civil codes. The term positive
law refers to the different rules and
regulations that are posited or put
forward by an authority figure that
require compliance.
- RELIGION - human beings’ relation
to that which they regard as holy,
sacred, absolute, spiritual, divine,
or worthy of especial reverence. It
is also commonly regarded as
consisting of the way people deal
with ultimate concerns about their
lives and their fate after death.
The Presumed Connection between
Morality and Religion
In 1987 the American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU) sued Judge Roy Moore of Gadsden,
Alabama, for displaying the Ten
Commandments in his courtroom. Such a
display, it said, violates the separation of
church and state. The ACLU may not have
liked Moore, but Alabama voters did. I
2000, Moore successfully campaigned to
become chief Justice of the Alabama
Supreme Court, running on the premise to
“restore the moral foundation of law.”
Thus the “Ten Commandments Judge
became the most powerful jurist in the
state of Alabama.
Moore was not through making his point,
however. In the wee hours of July 31, 2001,
he had a granite monument to the ten
Commandments installed in the Alabama
state judicial building. This monument
weighed over five thousand pounds, and
was anyone entering the building could not
miss it. Moore was sued again, but the
people were behind him: 77% of
Americans thought that he should be
allowed to display his monument. Yet the
law did not agree. When Moore disobeyed
a court order to remove it, the Alabama
Court of the Judiciary fired him, saying that
he had placed himself above the law.
Moore, however, believed that he was
putting God above the law.
Few people, at least in the United States,
would find this remarkable. Among
western democracies, the U.S. is an
unusually religious country. Nine out of ten
Americans say they believe in a personal
God; in Denmark and Sweden, the figure is
only one in five. It is not unusual for priests
and ministers to be treated as moral
experts. Most hospitals, for example, have
ethics committees, and these committees
usually include three types of members:
healthcare professionals to advise about
technical matters, lawyers to handle legal
issues, and religious representatives to
address the moral questions. When
newspapers want comments about the
ethical dimensions of a story, they call
upon the clergy, and the clergy are happy
to oblige. Priests and ministers are
assumed to be wise counselors who will
give sound moral advice when it is needed.
Why are clergymen regarded this way? The
reason is not that they have proven to be
better or wiser than other people - as a
group, they seem to be neither better nor
worse than the rest of us. There is a deeper
reason why they are regarded as having
special moral insight. In popular thinking,
morality and religion are inseparable:
People commonly believe that morality
can be understood only in the context of
religion. So, because the clergymen are the
spokesmen for religion, it is assumed that
they must be spokesmen for morality as
well.
It is not hard to see why people think this.
When viewed from a nonreligious
perspective, the universe seems to be a
cold, meaningless place, devoid of value
and purpose. In his essay, A Free Man’s
Worship, written in 1902, Bertrand Russell
expressed what he called the scientific
view of the world:
That Man is the product of causes which
had no prevision of the end they were
achieving; that his origin, his growth, his
hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs,
are but the outcome of accidental
collocations of atoms; that no fire, no
heroism, no intensity of thought and
feeling, can preserve an individual life
beyond the grave; that all the labours of
the ages, all the devotion, all the
inspiration, all the noonday brightness of
human genius, are destined to extinction in
the vast death of the solar system, and that
the whole temple of Man’s achievement
must inevitable be buried beneath the
debris of a universe in ruins - all these
things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet
so nearly certain, that no philosophy which
rejects them can hope to stand. Only
within the scaffolding of these truths, only
on the firm foundation of unyielding
despair, can the soul’s habitation
henceforth be safely built.
From a religious perspective, however,
things look very different. Judaism and
Christianity teach that the world was
created by a loving, all-powerful God to
provide a home for us. We, in turn, were
created in his image, to be his children.
Thus, the world is not devoid of meaning
and purpose. It is, instead, the arena in
which God’s plans and purposes are
realized. What could be more natural,
then, than to think that morality is a part of
the religious view of the world, whereas
the atheist’s world has no place for values?
The Divine Command Theory
In the major theistic traditions, including
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, God is
conceived as a lawgiver who has laid down
rules that we are to obey. He does not
compel us to obey them. We were created
as free agents, so we may choose to accept
or to reject his commandments. But if we
are to live as we should live, we must
follow God’s laws. This conception has
been elaborated by some theologians into
a theory about the nature of right and
wrong known as the Divine Command
Theory. Essentially, this theory says that
morally right means commanded by God
and morally wrong means forbidden by
God.
This theory has a number of attractive
features. It immediately solves the old
problem about the objectivity of ethics.
Ethics is not merely a matter of personal
feeling or social custom. Whether
something is right or wrong is perfectly
objective: It is right if God commands it,
wrong if God forbids it. Moreover, the
Divine Command Theory suggests an
answer to the perennial question of why
anyone should bother with morality. Why
not forget about ethics and just look out
for oneself? If immorality is the violation of
God’s commandments, there is an easy
answer: On the day of final reckoning, you
will be held accountable.
There are, however, serious problems for
the theory, Of course, atheists would not
accept it, because they do not believe that
God exists. But there are difficulties even
for believers. The main problem was first
noted by Plato, the Greek Philosopher who
lived 400 years before the birth of Jesus.
Plato’s writings were in the form of
dialogues, usually between Socrates and
one or more interlocutors. In one of these
dialogues, the Euthyphro, there is a
discussion concerning whether right can be
defined as that which the gods command.
Socrates is skeptical and asks: Is conduct
right because the gods command it, or do
the gods command it because it is right?
This is one of the most famous questions in
the history of philosophy. The British
philosopher Antony Flew suggests that one
good test of a person’s aptitude for
philosophy is to discover whether he can
grasp its force and point.
The point is that if we accept the
theological conception of right and wrong,
we are caught in a dilemma. Socrates
question asks us to clarify what we mean.
There are two things we might mean, and
both lead to trouble.
First, we might mean that right conduct is
right because God commands it. For
example, according to Exodus 20:16, God
commands us to be truthful. On this
option, the reason we should be truthful is
simply that God requires it. Apart from the
divine command, truth telling is neither
good nor bad. It is God’s command that
makes truthfulness right.
But this leads to trouble, for it represents
God’s commands as arbitrary. It means
that God could have given different
commands just as easily. He could have
commanded us to be liars, and then lying,
not truthfulness, would be right. (You may
be tempted to reply: But God would never
command us to lie. But why not? If he did
endorse lying, God would not be
commanding us to do wrong, because his
command would make it right.) Remember
that on this view, honesty was not right
before God commanded it. Therefore, he
could have had no more reason to
command it than its opposite; and so, from
a moral point of view, his command is
arbitrary.
Another problem is that, on this view, the
doctrine of the goodness of God is reduced
to nonsense. It is important to religious
believers that God is not only all-powerful
and all-knowing, but he is also good; yet if
we accept the idea that good and bad are
defined by reference to God’s will, this
notion is deprived of any meaning. What
could it mean to say that God’s commands
are good? If X is good means X is
commanded by God, then God’s
commands are good would mean only
God’s commands are commanded by God,
an empty truism. In 1686, Leibniz observed
in his Discourse on Metaphysics:
So, in saying that things are not good by
any rule of goodness, but sheerly by the
will of God, it seems to me that one
destroys, without realizing it, all the love of
God and all his glory. For why praise him
for what he has done if he would be equally
praiseworthy in doing exactly the
contrary?
Thus, if we choose the first of Socrates two
options, we seem to be stuck with
consequences that even the most religious
people would find unacceptable.
Unfortunately, however, this second
option leads to a different problem, which
is equally troublesome. In taking this
option, we have abandoned the
theological conception of right and wrong
- when we say that God commands us to be
truthful because truthfulness is right, we
are acknowledging a standard of right and
wrong that is independent of God’s will.
The rightness exists prior to and
independent of God’s command, and it is
the reason for the command. Thus, if we
want to know why we should be truthful,
the reply Because God commands it does
not really tell us, for we may still ask But
why does God command it? and the
answer to that question will provide the
underlying reason why truthfulness is a
good thing.
All this may be summarized in the following
argument:
Suppose God commands us to do what is
right. Then either (a) the right actions are
right because he commands them or (b) he
commands them because they are right.
If we take option (a), the God’s commands
are, from a moral point of view, arbitrary;
moreover, the doctrine of the goodness of
God is rendered meaningless.
If we take option (b), then we will have
acknowledged a standard of right and
wrong that is independent of God’s will.
We will have, in effect, given up the
theological conception of right and wrong.
Therefore, we must either regard God’s
commands as arbitrary, and give up the
doctrine of the goodness of God, or admit
that there is a standard of right and wrong
that is independent of his will, and give up
the theological conception of right and
wrong.
From a religious point of view, it is
unacceptable to regard God’s commands
as arbitrary or to give up the doctrine of
the goodness of God.
Therefore, even from a religious point of
view, a standard of right and wrong that is
independent of God’s will must be
accepted.
Many religious people believe that they
must accept a theological conception of
right and wrong because it would be
impious no to do so. They feel, somehow,
that if they believe in God, they should say
that right and wrong are to be defined in
terms of his will. But this argument
suggests otherwise: It suggests that, on the
contrary, the Divine Command Theory
itself leads to impious results, so that a
devout person should not accept it. And in
fact, some of the greatest theologians,
such as St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274),
rejected the theory for just this reason.
Thinkers such as Aquinas connect morality
with religion in a different way.
Religion and moral issues
Some religious people will find the
preceding discussion unsatisfying. It will
seem too abstract to have any bearing on
their actual moral lives. For them, the
connection between morality and religion
is an immediate, practical matter that
centers on particular moral issues. It
doesn’t matter whether right and wrong
are defined in terms of God’s will or
whether moral laws are laws of nature:
Whatever the merits of such theories,
there are still the moral teachings of one’s
religion about particular issues. The
teachings of the Scriptures and the church
are regarded as authoritative, determining
the moral positions one must take. To
mention only one example, many
Christians think that they have no choice
but to oppose abortion because it is
condemned both by the church and (they
assume) by the Scriptures.
Are there, in fact, distinctively religious
positions on major moral issues, which
believer are bound to accept? If so, are
those positions different from the views
that other people might reach simply by
trying to reason out the best thing to do?
The rhetoric of the pulpit suggests that the
answer to both questions is yes. But there
are several reasons to think otherwise.
In the first place, it is often difficult to find
specific moral guidance in the Scriptures.
Our problems are not the same as the
problems faced by the Jews and the early
Christians many centuries ago; thus, it is
not surprising that the Scriptures might be
silent about moral issues that seem urgent
to us. The Bible contains a number of
general precepts, such the injunctions to
love one’s neighbor and to treat others as
one would wish to be treated oneself, that
might be thought relevant to a variety of
issues. But worthy as those precepts are,
they do not yield definite answers about
exactly what position one should take
concerning the rights of workers, the
extinction of species, the funding of
medical research, and so on.
Another problem is that in many instances
the Scriptures and church tradition are
ambiguous. Authorities disagree, leaving
the believer in the awkward position of
having to choose which element of the
tradition to accept and which authority to
believe. Read plainly, for example, the New
Testament condemns being rich, and there
is a long tradition of self-denial and
charitable giving that affirms this teaching.
But there is also an obscure Old Testament
figure named Jabez who asked God to
enlarge my territories (I Chronicles 4:10),
and God did. A recent book urging
Christians to adopt Jabez as their model
became a best-seller.
Cultural Relativism holds that the norms of
a culture reign supreme within the bounds
of the culture itself.
How is culture defined?
What if someone told you their culture was
the internet? Would that make sense to
you? Culture is the beliefs, behaviors,
objects, and other characteristics shared
by groups of people. Given this, someone
could very well say that they are influenced
by internet culture, rather than an
ethnicity or a society! Culture could be
based on shared ethnicity, gender,
customs, values, or even objects. Can you
think of any cultural objects? Some
cultures place significant value in things
such as ceremonial artifacts, jewelry, or
even clothing.
- Cultural relativism refers to not
judging a culture to our own
standards of what is right or wrong,
strange or normal. Instead, we
should try to understand cultural
practices of other groups in its own
cultural context.
- Anthropologists say that when we
think about different cultures and
societies, we should think about
their customs in a way that helps us
make sense of how their cultural
practices fits with their overall
cultural context. For example,
having several wives perhaps
makes economic sense among
herders who move around
frequently. Through such an
understanding, polygamy makes
cultural sense.
SENSES OF THE SELF
- SUBJECTIVISM - The starting point
of subjectivism is the recognition
that the individual thinking person
(the subject) is at the heart of all
moral valuations. She is the one
who is confronted with the
situation and is burdened with the
need to make a decision or
judgment. From this point,
subjectivism leaps to the more
radical claim that the individual is
the sole determinant of what is
morally good or bad, right or
wrong.
ETHICAL SUBJECTIVISM:
- The basic thought of Ethical
Subjectivism is the idea that our
moral opinions are based on our
feelings and nothing more. On this
view, there is no such thing as
“objective” right and wrong.
- Subjectivism teaches that there are
no objective moral truths out there.
- There are no objective moral facts.
Therefore 'murder is wrong' can't
be objectively true.
- Many forms of subjectivism go a bit
further and teach that moral
statements describe how the
speaker feels about a particular
ethical issue.
- Moral statements are just factual
statements about the attitude the
speaker holds on a particular issue.
- So, if I say, "Lying is wrong", all I'm
doing is telling you that I
disapprove of telling lies.
- Some forms of subjectivism
generalise this idea to come up
with:
- Moral statements are just factual
statements about the attitude
normal human beings hold on a
particular issue.
- And this may ultimately lead us to
this conclusion about moral truths:
- Moral judgements are dependent
on the feelings and attitudes of the
persons who think about such
things.
Good points of subjectivism
- Reflects the subjective elements of
morality.
- it reflects the close relationship
between morality and people's
feelings and opinions - indeed it can
cope with the contradictory moral
 views we often find ourselves
wrestling with
- Reflects the evaluative elements of
moral statements.
- moral statements in everyday life
make judgements ("lying is
wrong"), factual statements ("cats
have fur") don’t.
- Shows that moral judgements
communicate dis/approval.
- it reflects the communication of
approval and disapproval that
seems to go along with the
everyday making of moral
statements.
- May clarify what people are
arguing about.
- subjectivism may enable people
disagreeing over the rightness or
wrongness of some issue to see
that the real dispute is not about
objective truth but about their own
preferences.
- Reflects the persuasive intentions
behind ethical discussions.
- subjectivism may also enable
people engaging in moral argument
to realise that they are not arguing
about objective truths but trying to
persuade their opponent to adopt
their point of view
- I disapprove but surely ethics is
about more than feeling.
Bad points of subjectivism
- The problem with subjectivism is
that it seems to imply that moral
statements are less significant than
most people think they are - this
may of course be true without
rendering moral statements
insignificant.
- "If I approve of something, it must
be good."
- Subjectivism seems to tell us that
moral statements give information
only about what we feel about
moral issues.
- If the simplest form of subjectivism
is true, then when a person who
genuinely approves of telling lies
says "telling lies is good" that moral
statement is unarguably true. It
would only be untrue if the speaker
didn't approve of telling lies.
- So under this theory it seems that
all the speaker has to do to prove
that lying is good is to show lots of
evidence that they do indeed
approve of lying - perhaps that they
tell lots of lies and feel good about
it, indeed are surprised if anyone
criticizes them for being a liar, and
that they often praise other people
for telling lies.
- Most people would find this way of
approaching ethics somewhat
unhelpful and wouldn't think it
reflected the way in which most
people talk about ethical issues.
- Moral statements seem more than
statements about feelings.
- By and large if a person says
something is wrong, we usually get
the message that they disapprove
of that something, but most of us
probably think that the other
person is doing more than just
telling us about their feelings.
How can we blame people if moral truths
are always subjective?
- If moral statements have no
objective truth, then how can we
blame people for behaving in a way
that 'is wrong', i.e. if "murder is
wrong" has no objective truth, then
how can we justify punishing
people for murder?
- One answer is that we can justify
punishment for murder on the
basis of the objective truth that
 most normal people in society
disapprove of murder. If we do this,
we should not pretend that our
justification is based on anything
other than the majority view.
PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOISM- “Human beings
are naturally self-centered, so all our
action are always already motivated by
self-interest.” This theory that describes
the underlying dynamic behind all human
actions. As a descriptive theory, it does not
direct one to act in any particular way.
Instead, it points out that there is already
an underlying basis for how one acts. The
ego or self has its desires and interest, and
all our actions are geared toward satisfying
these interests.
Ethical egoism
- Ethical egoism differs from
psychological egoism in that it does
not suppose all our actions are
already inevitably self-serving.
Instead, ethical egoism prescribes
that we should make our own ends,
our own interest, as the single
overriding concern. We may act in
a way that is beneficial to others,
but we should do that only if it
ultimately benefits us.
- Ethical egoism is the view that
people ought to pursue their own
self-interest, and no one has any
obligation to promote anyone
else’s interests. It is thus a
normative or prescriptive theory: it
is concerned with how people
ought to behave. In this respect,
ethical egoism is quite different
from psychological egoism, the
theory that all our actions are
ultimately self-interested.
Psychological egoism is a purely
descriptive theory that purports to
describe a basic fact about human
nature.
Arguments In Support of Ethical Egoism
- Scottish political economist and
philosopher Adam Smith (1723 -
1790).
- Scottish political economist and
philosopher Adam Smith (1723 -
1790). Hulton Archive/Getty
Images
Everyone pursuing his own self-interest is
the best way to promote the general good.
This argument was made famous by
Bernard Mandeville (1670-1733) in his
poem "The Fable of the Bees" and by Adam
Smith (1723-1790) in his pioneering work
on economics, "The Wealth of Nations."
In a famous passage, Smith wrote that
when individuals single-mindedly pursue
“the gratification of their own vain and
insatiable desires” they unintentionally, as
if “led by an invisible hand,” benefit society
as a whole. This happy result comes about
because people generally are the best
judges of what is in their own interest, and
they are much more motivated to work
hard to benefit themselves than to achieve
any other goal.
An obvious objection to this argument,
though, is that it doesn’t really support
ethical egoism. It assumes that what really
matters is the well-being of society as a
whole, the general good. It then claims
that the best way to achieve this end is for
everyone to look out for themselves. But if
it could be proved that this attitude did
not, in fact, promote the general good,
then those who advance this argument
would presumably stop advocating
egoism.
0). Hulton Archive/Getty Images
Everyone pursuing his own self-interest is
the best way to promote the general good.
This argument was made famous by
Bernard Mandeville (1670-1733) in his
poem "The Fable of the Bees" and by Adam
Smith (1723-1790) in his pioneering work
on economics, "The Wealth of Nations."
Prisoner's Dilemma
Another objection is that what the
argument states is not always true.
Consider the prisoner’s dilemma, for
instance. This is a hypothetical situation
described in game theory. You and a
comrade, (call him X) are being held in
prison. You are both asked to confess. The
terms of the deal you are offered are as
follows:
If you confess and X doesn’t, you get six
months, and he gets 10 years.
If X confesses and you don’t, he gets six
months, and you get 10 years.
If you both confess, you both get five years.
If neither of you confesses, you both get
two years.
Regardless of what X does, the best thing
for you to do is confess. Because if he
doesn’t confess, you’ll get a light sentence;
and if he does confess, you’ll at least avoid
getting extra prison time. But the same
reasoning holds for X as well. According to
ethical egoism, you should both pursue
your rational self-interest. But then the
outcome is not the best one possible. You
both get five years, whereas if both of you
had put your self-interest on hold, you’d
each only get two years.
The point of this is simple. It isn’t always in
your best interest to pursue your own self-
interest without concern for others.
Sacrificing your own interests for the good
of others denies the fundamental value of
your own life to yourself.
Ayn Rand's Objectivism
This seems to be the sort of argument put
forward by Ayn Rand, the leading exponent
of “objectivism” and the author of "The
Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged." Her
complaint is that the Judeo-Christian moral
tradition, which includes—or has fed
into—modern liberalism and socialism,
pushes an ethic of altruism. Altruism
means putting the interests of others
before your own.
This is something people are routinely
praised for doing, encouraged to do, and in
some circumstances even required to do,
such as when you pay taxes to support the
needy. According to Rand, no one has any
right to expect or demand that I make any
sacrifices for the sake of anyone other than
myself.
Russian-born American author and
philosopher Ayn Rand, smiles and stands
outdoors with her arms folded, in front of
the Grand Central building, midtown
Manhattan, New York City.
More Objections to Ethical Egoism
Ethical egoism is not a very popular moral
philosophy. This is because it goes against
certain basic assumptions that most
people have regarding what ethics
involves. Two objections seem especially
powerful.
Ethical egoism has no solutions to offer
when a problem arises involving conflicts
of interest. Many ethical issues are of this
sort. For example, a company wants to
empty waste into a river; the people living
downstream object. Ethical egoism advises
that both parties actively pursue what they
want. It doesn’t suggest any sort of
resolution or common-sense compromise.
Ethical egoism goes against the principle of
impartiality. A basic assumption made by
many moral philosophers—and many
other people, for that matter—is that we
should not discriminate against people on
arbitrary grounds such as race, religion,
sex, sexual orientation or ethnic origin. But
ethical egoism holds that we should not
even try to be impartial. Rather, we should
distinguish between ourselves and
everyone else, and give ourselves
preferential treatment.
To many, this seems to contradict the very
essence of morality. The golden rule—
versions of which appear in Confucianism,
Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, and
Islam—says we should treat others as we
would like to be treated. One of the
greatest moral philosophers of modern
times, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), argued
that the fundamental principle of morality
(the “categorical imperative,” in his jargon)
is that we should not make exceptions of
ourselves. According to Kant, we shouldn’t
perform an action if we cannot honestly
wish that everyone would behave in a
similar way in the same circumstances.
MODEL FOR ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING
1. GATHER THE FACTS - Frequently
ethical dilemmas can be resolved
simply by clarifying the facts of the
case in question. In those cases that
prove to be more difficult,
gathering the facts is the essential
first step prior to any ethical
analysis and reflection on the case.
- In analyzing a case, we want to
know the available facts at hand as
well as any facts currently not
known but that need to be
ascertained. Thus one is asking not
only “What do we know?” but also
“ What do we need to know?” in
order to make an intelligent ethical
decision
2.DETERMINE THE ETHICAL ISSUES
- The ethical issues are stated in
terms of competing interests or
goods. It’s these conflicting
interests that actually make for an
ethical dilemma.
3.WHAT ETHICAL PRINCIPLES HAVE A
BEARING ON THE CASE
- It is critical to identify these
principles, and in some cases, to
determine whether some
principles are to be weighted more
heavily than others.
4. LIST THE ALTERNATIVES
- Part of the creative thinking
involved in resolving an ethical
dilemma involves coming up with
various alternative courses of
action.
5. COMPARE THE ALTERNATIVES WITH
THE PRINCIPLES
- At this point, the task is one of
eliminating alternatives according
to the moral principles that have a
bearing on the case.
6, WEIGH THE CONSEQUENCES
- If the principles do not yield a clear
decision, then consideration of the
consequences of the remaining
available alternatives is in order
 PRE-CONVENTIONAL LEVEL
7. MAKE A DECISION
• (pre-conventional because
- Deliberations cannot go on forever. individuals do not yet speak as
At some point, a decision must be members of society, instead they
made. Realize that one common see morality as something external
element in ethical dilemmas is that to themselves)
there are no easy and painless
solutions to them.

STAGES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT

Lawrence Kohlberg

• American psychologist and

educator known for his
theory of moral
development.
• youngest of four children of
Alfred Kohlberg, a
successful silk merchant of
Jewish ancestry, and
Charlotte Albrecht
Kohlberg, a Protestant and
a skilled amateur chemist

CONVENTIONAL LEVEL

- (it speaks on isolated individuals

rather than as members of the
society. It sees individual
exchanging favors, but there is still
no identification with the values of
the family/community)

- Everyone goes through each stage

in the same order, but not
everyone goes through all the
stages.
- A person at one stage can
understand the reasoning of any
stage below him but cannot
understand more than one stage
above.
 to make the choice ethically
impossible.
• Personal Friendships
• Societal Dilemmas

POST-CONVENTIONAL LEVEL

(moral decisions are generated from the

rights, values or principles that are or that .
could be agreeable to all individuals
composing or creating a society designed
to have fair and beneficial practices)

ETHICAL DILEMMA

also known as a moral dilemmas, are

situations in which there is a choice to be
made between two options, neither of
which resolves the situation in an ethically
acceptable fashion. In such cases, societal
and personal ethical guidelines can provide
no satisfactory outcome for the chooser.

• assume that the chooser will abide

by societal norms, such as codes of
law or religious teachings, in order