GE 8 - Ethics Reviewer
In this
The Moral Agent: Moral Character
Carol Giligan
Carol Gilligan is another American psychologist who
earned a Master's degree in Clinical psychology at
Radcliffe College and earned her PhD in social
psychology at Harvard (Ball, 2010). Gilligan
acknowledged the influence of Kohlberg in her thinking
while she was working with him as a research assistant
(Ball, 2010). But unlike Kohlberg, Gilligan's interest is on
women's moral development. Thus, it could be viewed
that Gilligan extended the coverage of Kohlberg's moral
development by focusing this time on women (Gilligan,
1982, 4).
As a result of her project, Gilligan was able to publish a
groundbreaking book entitled in a Different Voice, which
made her famous. Gilligan's theory added a deeper
understanding on the moral development of the human
person, especially on women. Thus, it could be surmised
that Gilligan's work challenged Kohlberg's theory in terms
of its generalizability. It is also interesting to note that
Gilligan's work has opened another venue for a feminist
critique (Ball, 2010).
Now, while there seems to be a difference between men
and women's moral perspective, Gilligan argued that the
difference is not that significant (Gilligan, 1982, 2). In
fact, the difference is simply on the distinction between
two modes of thought (of men and women) rather than a
generalization about either sex (Gilligan). However, it is
important to note that Gilligan's theory does not simply
aim to show the contrast between men and women, but
how this contrast can eventually become a venue for
understanding both of them.
Gilligan's theory of moral development is composed of
three phases, that is, the concern for survival, goodness,
and the imperative of care. Let me briefly develop this
point below.
The concern for survival focuses on what is the best for
the self. However, it is the phase of moral development
where selfishness takes center stage. Gilligan
acknowledged that initially the self cares for itself in
order to survive (Gilligan, 1982, 74). Hence, anything that
can benefit the self will be the basis of her moral
decision. In fact, Gilligan sees it logical that before one
cares for another, one must care for herself first. Hence,
one should be responsible first for oneself before being
responsible for others (Gilligan, 1982, 76).
However, according to Gilligan, as the individual matures,
she realizes that she is not alone. She then starts to
acknowledge that the self is also related with other
selves in the community. Indeed, she recognizes the
presence of other selves in the community.
moment of realization, the transition happens when the
self starts to see the others as significant to her life. For
Gilligan, the connection to others will slowly become the
basis of moral judgment. This serves as a transition
from self-interest to being concerned with others
(Gilligan, 1982, 76). This is practical for Gilligan because
the moment the self begins to see the value of being
dependent on others, the self also sees the benefits that
it can reap from it. But it must be remembered that the
kind of relationship that the self had with others is not
genuine because it's instrumental, that is, it is selfish as
it only considers the advantages that it can get from the
relationship. Hence, there is no mutual recognition here.
Now, this recognition of the other's presence leads one
to the next phase of moral development. According to
Gilligan, this phase focuses on goodness, which includes
a sense of sacrifice and responsibility. Hence, in this
phase, Gilligan (1982, 79) quips, the self prioritizes the
other, that is, the self puts the needs of others ahead of
itself. Hence, for Gilligan, the individual in this phase
becomes aware that there are societal norms and
expectations. And this awareness allows oneself to be
part of the society by adopting these norms or values
(Gilligan, 1982, 79). Thus, as Gilligan notes, a moral
person is one who is capable of helping others and being
at the service of others as one's obligations and
responsibilities to others become her primary concern. It
is for this reason that for Gilligan, doing good to others is
the basis of moral decisions.
The concern for others would lead one to the third phase
of moral development, which, according to Gilligan,
focuses on the imperative of care. In this phase, Gilligan
notes, the individual attains a deeper appreciation of
connectedness with self and others, including
responsibility to self and others as moral equals and a
clear imperative to harm no one. Hence, the basic ethical
principle of "non- maleficence" is very important in this
phase. It is also important to note that the individual in
this phase goes beyond societal expectations, rather
than simply satisfying social norms and values. And the
individual in this phase of moral development takes
responsibility for her choices, in which projected
consequences and personal intention become the
motivation for actions, rather than concern for the
reactions of others. Here, moral decision is understood
as the exercise of choice and the willingness to accept
responsibility for one's actions (Gilligan, 1982, 67).
As we can see, the theory discussed above emphasizes
the ethics of care. It focuses on the individual's
responsibility and personal commitment towards
oneself, others, and the common good. This ethics of
care, therefore, implies relationship, obligations, and
responsibilities towards the other and the world as a
whole (Gilligan, 1982, 62). This also implies for Gilligan
that an individual cannot live part from others, and that
one's concern for others has a higher value than the
concern for personal survival. indeed, the self can only
be "itself" because of the presence of the others, they are
interdependent (Gilligan, 1982, 74).
Kohlberg’s Six Stages of Moral Development
Lawrence Kohlberg
➢ Was a Professor of Education and Social
Psychology at Harvard University
➢ Began as a developmental psychologist
○ Then moved to the field of education
➢ He was influenced by the Swiss psychologist
Jean Piaget
○ Famous for his theory on the moral
development of children
➢ Particularly well-known for his theory of moral
development
○ He developed through his extensive
research on the topic at Harvard’s
Center for Moral Education
Kohlberg’s – theory of moral development
● Was derived from his interviews with young boys
distributed from early childhood to late
adolescence
In these interviews:
- Kohlberg asked the participants to respond to
hypothetical ethical dilemmas
- A man contemplating on stealing a drug
to save his dying wife because he
cannot afford the drug after exhausting
all possibilities to pay for it
- The result of the interview showed a pattern of
responses which suggested a progression of
moral reasoning.
- Was born the theory of moral
development
- For Kohlberg, is the basis for
ethical behavior
Kohlberg thought that:
Moral development involves a specific process and time
> people progressed in their moral reasoning through a
series of stages
Kohlberg followed the development of moral judgment
beyond the ages originally studied by Piaget
> who claimed that logic and morality develop through
consecutive stages
● Expanded considerably on this groundwork
○ Determining that the process of moral
development was principally concerned
with justice
○ Its development continued throughout
the lifespan
○ Even spawning dialogue of
philosophical implication of his research
The result of the study allowed Kohlberg to come up with
his famous “SIX STAGES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT”
> which could be generally classified into 3 levels:
1. Preconventional level
2. Conventional level
3. Postconventional level
Kohlberg's stages of moral development is a theory that
describes how individuals develop their understanding of
morality over time. The theory consists of three levels,
each of which has two stages. In this essay, we will
explore each of these levels and stages in more detail.
Level 1: Pre-Conventional Morality
The pre-conventional level is the first level of Kohlberg's
stages of moral development, and it is typically observed
in young children. At this level, individuals are focused
on avoiding punishment and seeking rewards. Their
moral reasoning is based on their own self-interest and
personal needs.
Stage 1: Obedience and Punishment Orientation
At the first stage of the pre-conventional level,
individuals view rules and authority as absolute. They
obey rules to avoid punishment, and they believe that
those who break rules should be punished. They are not
able to take into account the needs or feelings of others.
Stage 2: Individualism and Exchange Orientation
At the second stage of the pre-conventional level,
individuals begin to consider the needs and desires of
others. They understand that others have their own
self-interests and may engage in exchanges to meet
their needs. For example, a child may share her toys with
a friend in exchange for the friend sharing their toys in
return.
Level 2: Conventional Morality
The second level of Kohlberg's stages of moral
development is the conventional level. At this level,
individuals are focused on maintaining social order and
conforming to societal norms. They are concerned with
being a "good" person and following the expectations of
others.
Stage 3: Interpersonal Relationships Orientation
At the third stage of the conventional level, individuals
are focused on being perceived as a good person by
others. They are motivated by a desire to maintain
positive relationships with others and to be seen as kind,
helpful, and cooperative. They conform to societal
norms to fit in and be accepted by others.
Stage 4: Maintaining Social Order Orientation
At the fourth stage of the conventional level, individuals
understand the importance of following the laws and
rules of society. They believe that laws are necessary for
maintaining social order, and they feel a duty to obey
them. They are concerned with upholding the social
order and maintaining the status quo.
Level 3: Post-Conventional Morality
The post-conventional level is the third and final level
of Kohlberg's stages of moral development. At this
level, individuals are capable of thinking beyond the
expectations of society and are willing to challenge
social norms and conventions to uphold their own
ethical principles.
Stage 5: Social Contract and Individual Rights
Orientation
At the fifth stage of the post-conventional level,
individuals recognize that laws and social norms are
created by people and are subject to change. They
believe that rules should be based on the mutual benefit
of all members of society and that there are times when
it may be necessary to challenge unjust laws. They are
willing to weigh the interests of different groups and
make decisions based on what is fair and just.
Stage 6: Universal Ethical Principles Orientation
At the sixth and final stage of the post-conventional
level, individuals develop a sense of personal ethical
principles that are independent of society's rules and
norms. They believe in the inherent value of all
individuals and the importance of upholding human
rights and dignity. They are willing to stand up for their
beliefs and principles, even if it means going against
social norms and expectations.
Critiques of Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development
Despite its widespread influence, Kohlberg's stages of
moral development has faced criticism from various
perspectives. Some of the critiques are as follows:
Cultural Bias: One of the primary critiques of Kohlberg's
theory is that it is heavily influenced by Western cultural
values and may not be applicable to people from
different cultural backgrounds. The stages were
developed based on research with Western participants,
and critics argue that the stages may not be relevant or
accurate for individuals from other cultures.
1. Gender Bias: Another critique of Kohlberg's theory is
that it is biased towards males. Kohlberg's research was
conducted primarily with male participants, and some
studies have found that females tend to score lower on
measures of moral reasoning than males. Critics argue
that Kohlberg's stages may not accurately reflect the
moral development of females and other marginalized
groups.
2. Limited Scope: Kohlberg's theory focuses primarily on
moral reasoning and does not consider other factors
that may influence moral development, such as
emotions, empathy, and socialization. Critics argue that
the theory provides an incomplete picture of moral
development and may not fully capture the complexities
of moral decision-making.
3. Lack of Empirical Support: Some researchers have
found that Kohlberg's stages of moral development do
not consistently predict moral behavior in real- world
situations. This has led some to question the validity of
the theory and its ability to accurately measure moral
development.
4. Hierarchy of Stages: Critics have also raised concerns
about the hierarchical nature of Kohlberg's stages, which
suggests that individuals must progress through each
stage in a linear fashion. Some argue that this
oversimplifies the complexities of moral development
and may not accurately reflect the way that individuals
actually develop their moral reasoning.
5. Lack of Diversity: Kohlberg's theory primarily focuses
on the development of moral reasoning in white,
middle-class males. Critics argue that the theory may
not be representative of the experiences of individuals
from different socioeconomic backgrounds, races, and
ethnicities.
In response to these critiques, some researchers have
attempted to expand on Kohlberg's theory to address
some of the limitations. For example, Carol Gilligan's
theory of moral development focuses on the
development of care and empathy, which she argues is a
key component of moral reasoning that is often
overlooked by Kohlberg's theory. Additionally, some
researchers have suggested that the stages of moral
development may not be hierarchical and that individuals
may move back and forth between stages depending on
the context and situation.
Despite these critiques, Kohlberg's stages of moral
development remains a significant and influential theory
in the field of psychology. It has provided a framework
for understanding how individuals develop their
understanding of morality over time, and it has helped to
stimulate further research and discussion on the topic of
moral development.
Moral Awareness
“Many of the Concepts Unwrapped videos use the
research generated by the new field of behavioral ethics
to illustrate how difficult it can be to do the right thing,
even for people who are good folks. A desire to please
authority or to fit in with the group may cause people to
act inconsistently with their own moral values. For
example, the slippery slope can cause people to fail to
notice lapses in moral judgment made by themselves or
others. The list goes on, but the underlying lesson is
clear: It is not easy to always be a good person, even if
you want to be. But behavioral ethics can also give us
guidance as to how to act more ethically and induce
others to do so too. According to Professor James Rest,
there are four key steps to acting ethically, which we
have modified slightly. First, people must perceive the
ethical dimensions of an issue that they face. This is
Moral Awareness. Second, they must have the ability to
decide upon a course of action that is ethical. This is
Moral Decision Making. Third, they must have the desire
to act on that ethical decision. This is known as Moral
Intent. Fourth and finally, they must have the motivation
and courage to act upon that desire, which we call Moral
Action. This video explores the first step to being your
best self, which means developing moral
awareness.Absent moral awareness, people might
accidentally make the right choice, but they might also
accidentally make an unethical choice because they are
focusing upon other aspects of the decision calculus
and inadvertently omitting any ethical
considerations.Studies on selective attention prove that
people generally see what they expect to see. If you
focus too much on pleasing your boss, on getting along
with your co-workers, on meeting sales quotas or bonus
targets, you may not even see an ethical issue which is
right there in front of you. The phenomenon that
Professors Bazerman and Tenbrunsel call “ethical
fading” and Drumwright and Murphy call “moral myopia,”
can blind all of us to ethical miscues if we are not
careful.It is our responsibility, as people who wish to live
ethical lives, to keep ethics in our frame of reference. We
can do so by reminding ourselves every morning in the
shower that we wish to be good people and that to meet
that goal we must constantly strive to act ethically just
as we must constantly strive to gain more knowledge
and skill regarding the technical aspects of our jobs.
Looking out for ethical minefields is part of our personal
and professional responsibility every day.Behavioral
ethics teaches that we must practice listening to our
moral intuition, “to our gut,” rather than turning all ethical
discussions into legalistic exercises like lawyers
weighing both sides of the issue or accountants parsing
technical language in an attempt to justify a position that
intuition tells them is wrong. Our gut instinct is not
always right, but we would be foolish to ignore it.
Psychologists DeSteno and Valdesolo say this: “When
faced with a moral decision, take a few seconds to
pause and listen to your inner voices. Is there a hint of
guilt, a hint of shame, a gut feeling of unease? If so, don’t
ignore it.” This is your moral awareness awakening.”
Moral Decision Making
“Being aware that an issue presents a moral dimension
is step one in being your best self. Step 2 is Moral
Decision Making. Moral decision making is having the
ability to decide which is the right course of action once
we have spotted the ethical issue. Sometimes this can
be very difficult, as multiple options may seem morally
defensible (or, perhaps, no options seem morally
acceptable). Sometimes people face difficult ethical
choices, and it is hard to fault them too much for making
a good faith choice that they think is right but turns out
to be wrong. However, most white collar
crimes–over-billing, insider trading, paying bribes,
fudging earnings numbers, hiding income from the IRS,
and most other activities that lead people to end up
doing the perp walk on the front page of the business
section–do not present intractable ethical conundrums.
They are obviously wrong. The problem is not that we
haven’t read enough Kant or John Stuart Mill.More
commonly, the problem is that we are unaware of
psychological, organizational, and social influences that
can cause us to make less than optimal ethical choices.
Our ethical decision making is often automatic and
instinctive. It involved emotions, not reasoning. When we
think that we are reasoning to an ethical conclusion, the
evidence shows that we typically are simply rationalizing
a decision already made by the emotional parts of our
brains.Our brains’ intuitive system often gets it right, but
not universally. So, we should never ignore our gut
feelings when they tell us that we are about to do
something wrong. But, our intuition does not always
choose the ethical path. An important reason that the
intuitive/emotional part of our brain errs is the
self-serving bias, which often leads us to unconsciously
make choices that seem unjustifiable to objective third
party observers.As a simple example, a U.S. News &
World Report survey asked some people: “If someone
sues you and you win the case, should they pay your
legal expenses?” Eighty-five percent of the respondents
thought this would be fair. The magazine asked others:
“If you sue someone and lose the case, should you pay
their costs?” Now, only 44% of respondents agreed,
illustrating how our sense of fairness is easily influenced
by self-interest. If we are not careful, we will not even
notice how the self-serving bias influences our ethical
decisions. Authors Bronson and Merryman report that “if
you’re a Red Sox fan, watching a Sox game, you’re using
a different region of the brain to judge if a runner is safe
than you would if you were watching a game between
two teams you didn’t care about.” So, how can we
combat the self-serving bias?There is some
experimental evidence that if we know about the
self-serving bias, we can arm ourselves against it and
minimize its effects. We must focus not just on being
objective, but on doing what it takes to ensure that
others see us as objective. We will naturally judge our
own decisions with a sympathetic eye, but we know that
others will not necessarily do so. So if we do what it
takes to cause objective third parties to trust our
judgments, we should go a long way toward overcoming
the impact of the self-serving bias.We should also pay
especially close attention to our profession’s code of
conduct and our employer’s code of ethics, because
such standards are normally aimed primarily at
minimizing conflicts of interest and their unconscious
impact on our decision making. The self-serving bias is
far from the only psychological or organizational factor
that can cause us to make the wrong ethical choice, but
it is certainly a big one!”
Moral Intent
“Moral Intent is the third step in being your best self.
Most people wish to think of themselves as good people,
but they also desire the benefits that can come with
acting unethically. Therefore, substantial empirical
evidence indicates that most people on most days lie a
little and cheat a little. As psychologist Dan Ariely points
out, we tend to lie and cheat, but only up to the level that
allows us to retain our self-image as reasonably honest
individuals. The human ability to rationalize is perhaps
the single most important factor that enables good
people to give themselves license to do bad
things.Therefore, one of the best things we can do to
preserve our moral intent is to monitor our own
rationalizations. Professors Anand, Ashforth and Joshi
studied the most common rationalizations and placed
them into six categories.The first category is denial of
responsibility, for we are consciously doing something
unethical, but choosing to do it anyway because we can
shift the responsibility to someone else, which
substantially mitigates our feelings of guilt. So if you find
yourself saying, “I know this is wrong, but my boss has
ordered me to do it.” A little alarm should go off in your
head warning you that you are about to go off the ethical
rails.The second category is denial of injury, where we
consciously choose do something wrong because the
supposedly slight harm involved makes it not seem so
bad. So, if you find yourself saying, “I know this is wrong,
but shareholders have diversified portfolios, so no one
will really be hurt by a small lie or a little earnings
management,” that alarm bell should again sound.The
third category is denial of victim where we choose to do
something wrong because some fault we attribute to the
victim makes it seem to us that the victim deserves the
harm.The fourth category is social weighting, where we
consciously choose to do something wrong, but by
weighing our bad actions against those of people who
do even worse things, we can make ourselves appear
almost heroic… at least in our own eyes. So, if you find
yourself saying: “I know this is wrong, but my
competitors do stuff that is way worse,” then you should
realize you are about to make a big mistake.The fifth
category is the appeal to higher loyalties, where we
consciously do something wrong, but justify doing it just
this one time by elevating loyalty to our firm or our family
to a preeminent position. So, if you find yourself saying:
“I know this is wrong, but I don’t want to undermine my
boss.” Or, “I know this is wrong, but I’ve got a family to
feed,” it is time to rethink.Sixth and last in Anand and
colleagues’ categorization is the metaphor of the ledger.
Here we do something that we know is wrong, but
conclude that it is justified in this case, perhaps because
of our perceived mistreatment at the hands of our
victim.This does not exhaust the categories of
rationalizations, of course. But if you will practice
monitoring your own rationalizations and talk out your
difficult decisions with a trusted confidant who can call
you on them, you increase your chances of leading an
honorable life by preserving your moral intent. You will
be less likely to write yourself an ethical “hall pass” if the
little alarm bell in your head goes off when you hear
yourself rationalizing.”
 principles, an awareness of the danger involved in
Moral Action supporting those principles, and a willing endurance of
“Even if you are aware of an ethical issue, correctly that danger.” We may want to do the right thing, but be
select a defensible ethical choice, and have the desire to too timid to stand up to our superiors or peers. Or,
do the right thing, you may still be unable to translate all perhaps we lack the courage to risk the loss of our job.
that into moral action. Professor Hannah and his How can we muster moral courage?Professor Gentile
colleagues argue that it takes three things to turn moral recommends that, first, we should all be thrifty and set
intent into moral action, and those are moral ownership, aside “go to hell” funds. It will obviously be easier for us
moral efficacy, and moral courage. Fortunately, the to screw up the courage to do the right thing when we
teachings of behavioral ethics can bolster all three.We have set aside money to pay living expenses while we
take moral ownership when we feel a sense of look for another job than if we owe money all over
psychological responsibility over the ethical nature of town.Gentile recommends that we should visualize and
our own actions and of those around us. To create moral accept the fact that part of our professional journey will
ownership, we must battle the forces that cause ethical likely involve facing ethical dilemmas that will require us
blindness and moral myopia. All the behavioral-based to make sacrifices in order to have the type of career,
advice given in other videos as to how we can avoid and consequently the type of life, of which we can be
ethical fading, make ethical choices, and ratchet up our proud. By anticipating or normalizing the idea that we
moral intent should assist us in increasing our moral may have to take career-threatening risks in order to
ownership.Moral efficacy is a belief in our ability to act preserve our integrity, we expand our vision of what we
ethically and to induce others to do so in the face of are capable of. We can, in fact, do what is necessary to
moral adversity. Often people have an abstract desire to be our best selves.”
do the right thing, but just don’t feel empowered to resist
all the forces of authority, conformity and the like that
can make it difficult to do so. But we must remember
what’s been called the “power of one.” Although it is
natural for us to feel isolated and lonely and therefore
believe that we can’t possibly have an impact, evidence
shows that often a single, ordinary person can make a
difference. Our bosses and coworkers may just be
looking at things the wrong way and, if given a couple of
good reasons to change their minds, would do so. And
that ability to persuade can create a feeling of moral
efficacy. Sometimes others may not have the courage to
lead, but would have the courage to follow.Mary Gentile
read more than a thousand essays by Columbia
University MBA applicants who had been asked to write
about whether they had in their professional lives been
asked to do something that made them ethically
uncomfortable and how they had dealt with the
situation. Almost all of the applicants had faced a
difficult ethical situation. A little more than half just did
what they had been asked to do, even though it seemed
wrong to them. They didn’t feel they had a choice. About
10% had the courage to just walk out the door rather
than get stuck in an unethical culture. Of the rest, a small
group tried to do the right thing and failed, but most tried
to do the right thing and succeeded! They found that if
they just made a forceful case for their ethical position,
they often won over their bosses and co-workers.Finally,
moral courage is necessary to translate moral decisions
into moral action. The late ethicist Rushworth Kidder
defined moral courage as “a commitment to moral