Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 33

m 


    
  

 


   
Moral Reasoning
Two Essential Components of Moral Reasoning
Importance of Moral Reasoning
Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Reasoning
Heinz dilemma
Theories of Justice Approaches
Justice
Theories of Distributive Justice, Retributive Justice
and Compensatory Justice.

   
It refers to the reasoning process by which
human behaviors, institutions, or policies
are Judged to be in accordance with or in
violation of moral standards.

It is thus, a thinking process with the


objective of making appropriate use of
facts and opinions to determining whether
an idea is right or wrong .
m 
  

   
An understanding of what reasonable
moral standards require, prohibit,
value, or condemn, and ;

Evidence or Information that shows


that a particular person, policy or
institution, or behavior has the kinds
of features that these moral standards
require, prohibit, value, or condemn.
— 
   
ður actions stem from our thoughts, and such actions
influence the lives of others. Unfortunately, human
beings are not born with a "code of conduct". ðne
approach to determine how one should live, is to seek
the knowledge of religious leaders. Alternatively, one
could engage in moral reasoning to determine
whether ones actions are right or wrong.

Even in making the choice to seek the knowledge of


religious leaders, or to choose a philosophy or
religion, one is making a decision regarding right
action - e.g. "Is this religion, leader, or philosophy the
correct one to turn my life over to?"
— 
     
The ability to choose the "right" religion or to discard
religion in favor of one's own philosophy, or any
other similar choice, will benefit from the application
of moral reasoning.
The ability to make a choice, and to make a good
choice, has powerful consequences thereafter. ður
lives, and our effect on others, are governed by the
decisions we make, and the consequences of our
decisions are likely to be governed by the quality of
the decisions we make.
The ability to make good decisions will impact our
lives, how we treat others, how we are treated in
return. The ability to have a good framework for
making our own decisions will allow us to make
better decisions, which can be obtained by moral
reasoning.
  

An Independent Author is offering reasons for
claiming that American social institutions are
unjust. Many Non white people live in the
American society, fight for it in disproportionate
numbers, contribute cheap labor for the
economic growth etc. But, these people do not
enjoy the same benefits as their counterparts.
41% of Negroes fall below the poverty Line as
compared to 12% of whites.
 
 
Infant mortality rate is 3 times as high among
nonwhite babies as among whites. Negroes make
up 11% of the nation¶s workforce, but they have
only 6% of the nation¶s technical and
professional jobs, 3% of the managerial jobs, and
6% of jobs in skilled trades. m    

        à
      à
Discrimination that prevents people from getting
benefits out of their society in which they have
made a significant contribution, is unjustified.


! "m 
    
Lawrence Kohlberg (1927-
(1927-1987) was a well-
well-known
theorist in the field of moral development. He posed
moral dilemmas (e.g., Heinz Dilemma) to his subjects
and then asked questions to probe their reasons for
recommending a specific course of action.
Kohlberg's theory of moral reasoning is a stage
theory. This means that everyone goes through the
stages sequentially without skipping any stage.
However, movement through these stages are not
natural, that is people do not automatically move
from one stage to the next as they mature. In stage
development, movement is effected when cognitive
dissonance occurs ... that is when a person notices
inadequacies in his or her present way of coping with
a given moral dilemma
K 
   
V      
V  

      The


       
pre-- conventional level of moral reasoning is especially
pre
common in children, although adults can also exhibit this
level of reasoning. Individuals focuses on the direct
consequences that their actions will have for themselves.

The worse the punishment for the act is, the more 'badµ
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.
     
 
This stage is self-
self-interest driven. It espouses the
what's in it for me position, the 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 but the perspective of the world
is often seen as morally relative.
V   
 
 
mersons who reason in a conventional way judge the
morality of actions by comparing these actions to societal views and
expectations

        


        
Individuals enters the society by filling social roles and
are receptive of approval or disapproval from other people
as it reflects society's accordance with the perceived role.
They try to be a    or   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 in the society.
 V!   "
The individual realizes that it is important to obey
laws, dictums and social conventions because of
their importance in maintaining the smooth
functioning of a society. A central ideal or ideals
often prescribe what is right and wrong 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.
V m     #$  
  
Realization that individuals are separate entities from
society now becomes salient. ðne's own perspective
should be viewed before the society's.
%     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 Y YY  Y YY
   . .
This is attained through majority decision, and inevitably
compromise. In this way democratic government is
ostensibly based on stage five reasoning .

&  '    
 
At this final stage, right action comes to be defined in
terms of moral principles chosen because of their logical
comprehensiveness, universality, and consistency. These
ethical principles are not concrete like the 10
commandments, but abstract general principles dealing
with justice, society¶s welfare, the equality of human
Rights, respect for the dignity of individual human beings.
Decisions are not met hypothetically in a conditional way
but rather categorically in an absolute way. This can be
done by imagining what one would do being in some one
else¶s shoes, who imagined what anyone would do
thinking the same.
j (   A dilemma that Kohlberg
used in his original research. The druggist's dilemma à
j YY 
 
 
A woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was
one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of
radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered.
The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten
times what the drug cost him to produce. He paid $200 for the
radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick
woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the
money, but he could only get together about $ 1,000, which is half
of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and
asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist
said, "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from
it." So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal
the drug for his wife.   j ( )   
V  * !*+, !  ?  ?
 -     )à Heinz
 M )à
should not steal the medicine because he will
consequently be put in prison which will mean
he is a bad person or Heinz should steal the
medicine because it is only worth $200 and not
how much the druggist wanted for it; Heinz had
even offered to pay for it and was not stealing
anything else.

 
§ )à Heinz should steal the
!-§ 
§ )à
!-§
medicine because he will be much happier if he
saves his wife, even if he will have to serve a
prison sentence. ðrà Heinz should not steal the
medicine because prison is an awful place, and
he would probably languish over a jail cell more
than his wife's death.
 -MM

-MM
 )à)à Heinz should steal the
medicine because his wife expects it; he wants to
be a good husband. ðrà Heinz should not steal the
drug because stealing is bad and he is not a
criminal; he tried to do everything he could
without breaking the law, you cannot blame him

*-  


*-  M

)à Heinz should not
M


steal the medicine because the law prohibits
stealing, making it illegal or Heinz should steal
the drug for his wife but also take the prescribed
punishment for the crime as well as paying the
druggist what he is owed. Criminals cannot just
run around without regard for the law; actions
have consequences.
r *- 
 §)à Heinz should steal
*- 
 §)à
the medicine because everyone has a right to
choose life, regardless of the law. ðr Heinz
should not steal the medicine because the
scientist has a right to fair compensation. Even
if his wife is sick, it does not make his actions
right.

 §)à Heinz



- 
§   §)à
should steal the medicine, because saving a
human life is a more fundamental value than
the property rights of another person. ðr Heinz
should not steal the medicine, because others
may need the medicine just as badly, and their
lives are equally significant.
m 
  

1.The quality of being just; conformity to the
principles of righteousness and rectitude in all
things; strict performance of moral obligations;
practical conformity to human or divine law;
integrity in the dealings of men with each other;
rectitude; equity; uprightness.

2.Conformity to truth and reality in expressing


opinions and in conduct; fair representation of
facts respecting merit or demerit; honesty,
impartiality of a judgment.
m     

ã §
  §  à It is concerned
àIt
with the proper allocation of good things
- wealth, power reward, respect -
between different people.
 
  §  à It refers to the just
àIt
imposition of punishments and penalties
on those who do wrong.
' M § M
 §  à It concerns the
àIt
just way of compensating people for
what they have lost when they were
wronged by others.
m #!$
m !$%  
& 
    
  
 
Ä—!
Ä—!

 ''' !  
   Ä
„        
 
 
 
 
Ä( ) '
$ '*'
Ä( ) '
$ '*'
  ! ' ! 
'
 Ä
 
 
 V V V  
 

 
 
 Ä&
'
Ä&
'
 '  
 '  
 Ä
m #!$
 
ã  
   This
This holds that the proper
distribution of wealth (and perhaps other
goods like respect, opportunity) should be an
equal oneà no individual in the relevant group
should have more or less than any other
individual in that group (individuals,
families, nations, races, species).
Commonly--held egalitarian positions include
Commonly
demands for equality of opportunity and for
equality of outcome.
2) m  à According to this
theory, goods, especially wealth and
social status, should be distributed to
match individual Y
Y,, which is usually
understood as some combination of talent
and hard work.
3) _
_  à According to
this theory, goods, especially such basic
goods as food, shelter and medical care,
should be distributed to meet individuals¶
basic needs for them.
! .!   */
1. Each person is to have an equal right to the
most extensive total system of equal basic
liberties compatible with a similar system of
liberty for all.
2. Social and economic inequalities are to be
arranged in such a way, that they are both à
a) to the greatest benefit of the least
advantaged, consistent with the just savings
principle, and
b) attached to offices and positions open to all
under conditions of fair equality of
opportunity.
&   According to it, justice
requires the maximization of the total or
average welfare across all relevant individuals.
This may require sacrifice of some for the
good of others, so long as everyone¶s good is
taken impartially into account.
Utilitarianism, in general, argues that the
standard of justification for actions,
institutions, or the whole world, is  Y

 Y ,, and only indirectly,
 
 Y
if at all, to do with rights, property, need, or
any other non-
non-utilitarian criterion.
m *0
m !$% 
      
  '   
& 
     Ä
    
!  Ä
  
  
  

$Ä
Retributivism
It lays down 3 main conditions that are
necessary for retributive justice à

1    $  à If people do not


Know about the consequences of the Actions
which they have chosen freely, or are Innocently
ignorant, then they cannot justly be punished or
blamed for it.
Eg à A Cotton Mills ðwner producing a product
that Results in emission of harmful gases and
causing Brown lung disease.
1The second condition of just punishments
1The
Is certitude that the person being punished
has actually done something wrong i.e.
There is sufficient evidence or proof.
àà menalizing an employee on the basis of

flimsy or incomplete/incorrect Evidence is
injustice.
The third condition of just punishments is
1The
1
that they must be consistent and
mroportioned to the wrong. munishment is
Consistent only when everyone is given the same
menalty for the same wrongdoing.
  



A person has a moral obligation to compensate
an injured party only if 3 conditions are
present à
1m    *   /!! 
   2

1m   . !  * 


 /2

 /   .


1m    *   /   .
m +
,

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi