1002 Moral Reasoning
2MORAL REASONING
• Definition of Moral Reasoning
• Kohlberg’s Three Levels of Moral
Development
• Components of Moral Reasoning
• Situations that call for moral reasoning
• Obstacles to recognizing an ethically
salient situation
3Definition of Moral Reasoning
It is the reasoning process by which
human behaviors, institutions, or
policies are judged to be in
accordance with or in violation of
moral standards.
Moral reasoning is the process of determining
right or wrong in a given situation.
http://www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.php?term=Moral
%20Reasoning#ixzz4ZHUXwOtH
Moral Development
Velasquez 2012: p. 38
Lawrence Kohlberg, the American
psychologist: people develop through
three levels of moral reasoning as
needed by situations they encounter.
Within these 3 levels, he concluded that
there is a sequence of six identifiable
stages in the development of a person’s
ability to deal with moral issues.
Kohlberg’s theory helps us understand how our moral
capacities develop and reveals how we may mature in our
understanding of our own moral standards.
4
5Three Levels of Moral Development
A person has reached the highest level when
they make moral choices based on social
contracts, or unspoken agreements to behave a
certain way, and when they can generalize
ethical principles beyond their own interests.
At the second level a person perceives an absolute
right and wrong and believes the law is the judge of
morality.
The lowest level involves making decisions of morality by
trying to avoid getting punished.
http://www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.php?te
rm=Moral%20Reasoning#ixzz4ZHUXwOtH
Kohlberg’s Three Levels of Moral Development
Velasquez 2012: p. 38-39
Stages of OrientationLevels
6. Universal Moral Principles
5. Social contract
III. Postconventional
Shared standards,
rights and duties
4. Law and order
3. Interpersonal concordance
II. Conventional
Performing right roles
2. Instrumental
1. Punishment and Obedience
I. Preconventional
Values in external
events 6
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bounwXLkme4
Trump says paying little tax was legal
7
Donald Trump is acknowledging that he has "legally used the
tax laws to my benefit.'' The Republican presidential
candidate said Monday in Colorado that in private business,
he "brilliantly used those laws'' to "pay as little tax as legally
possible'' during turbulent economic times. But he added, "I
work for you now. I'm not working for Trump,'' and intends to
use his tax law expertise to "fix'' the complexity of the law.
The Standard, Oct 4, 2016 10:52
http://www.thestandard.com.hk/breaking-news.php?id=80312
He spoke in the wake of a New York Times
report that said he reported losing more than
US$900 million, which legally could have helped
him avoid paying taxes for nearly two decades.
He did not say the article was correct, and did
not dispute it.
Heinz Dilemma - Kohlberg's stages of Moral
Development
8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxJ07klMhr0
9A 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. Should Heinz have broken into the
laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?
Heinz dilemma
A dilemma that Kohlberg used in his original research was the druggist's
dilemma: Heinz Steals the Drug In Europe.
Kohlberg, Lawrence (1981). Essays on Moral Development, Vol. I: The Philosophy of
Moral Development. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row. ISBN 0-06-064760-4.
Kohlberg’s Six Stages of Moral Development
Which Stage does each
statement represent?
(1 to 6)
Put yourself into Heinz’s position, and think about what Heinz should do and why.
Indicate which statements you agree with (A), disagree with (D), or are neutral about
(N).
A. Heinz should not steal the medicine, because he will consequently be
put in prison.
B. Heinz should steal the medicine, because saving a human life is a
more fundamental value than the property rights of another person.
C. Heinz should not steal the medicine, because others may need the
medicine just as badly, and their lives are equally significant.
D. Heinz should steal the medicine, because everyone has a right to
choose life, regardless of the law.
E. Heinz should not steal the medicine, because the scientist has a right
to fair compensation.
F. Heinz should not steal the medicine, because the law prohibits
stealing making it illegal.
G. Heinz should steal the medicine, because his wife expects it; he
wants to be a good husband.
H. Heinz should steal the medicine, because he will be much happier if
he saves his wife, even if he will have to serve a prison sentence. 10
Heinz Dilemma - Kohlberg's stages of Moral Development (Interactive Animation)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5czp9S4u26M
http://www.cuyamaca.edu/courtneyhammond/word/justiceversuscare.doc
11
Kohlberg’s Six Stages of Moral Development
Which stage does each
answer belong to?Heinz’s possible answers
1 Punishment
and Obedience
A. Heinz should not steal the medicine, because he will consequently be
put in prison.
6 Universal Moral
Principles
B. Heinz should steal the medicine, because saving a human life is a
more fundamental value than the property rights of another person
6 Universal Moral
Principles
C. Heinz should not steal the medicine, because others may need the
medicine just as badly, and their lives are equally significant.
5 Social contractD. Heinz should steal the medicine, because everyone has a right to choose life, regardless of the law
5 Social contractE. Heinz should not steal the medicine, because the scientist has a right to fair compensation.
4 Law and orderF. Heinz should not steal the medicine, because the law prohibits stealing
making it illegal.
3 Interpersonal
concordance
G. Heinz should steal the medicine, because his wife expects it; he wants
to be a good husband.
2 Instrumental
and Relative
H. Heinz should steal the medicine, because he will be much happier if
he saves his wife, even if he will have to serve a prison sentence.
12
From. a theoretical point of view, it is not important what the participant thinks that Heinz should do.
Kohlberg's theory holds that the justification the participant offers is what is significant, the form of
their response. Below are some of many examples of possible arguments that belong to the six
stages:
Stage one (obedience): Heinz should not steal the medicine because he would consequently be
put in prison, which would mean he is a bad person.
Or: Heinz should steal the medicine because it is only worth $200, not how much the druggist
wanted for it. Heinz had even offered to pay for it and was not stealing anything else.
Stage two (self-interest): Heinz should steal the medicine because he will be much happier if he
saves his wife, even if he will have to serve a prison sentence.
Or: Heinz should not steal the medicine because prison is an awful place, and he would
probably experience anguish over a jail cell more than his wife's death.
Stage three (conformity): Heinz should steal the medicine because his wife expects it; he wants to
be a good husband.
Or: 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.
Stage four (law-and-order): Heinz should not 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.
Stage five (soci): Heinz should steal the medicine because everyone has a right to choose life,
regardless of the law.
Or: Heinz should not steal the medicine because the scientist has a right to compensation.
Even if his wife is sick, it does not make his actions right.
Stage six (universal human ethics): Heinz should steal the medicine, because saving a human life
is a more fundamental value than the property rights of another person.
Or: Heinz should not steal the medicine, because others may need the medicine just as badly,
and their lives are equally significant
http://www.academia.edu/6536117/Kohlberg_moral_stage_development_theoretical_assumption_with_Henza_dillama_and_major_critics
Heinz Dilemma - Kohlberg's stages of Moral Development
Most managers rely on decision
criteria associated with moral
reasoning at stages 3 and 4.
13
Managers’ Moral Reasoning
(Lawrence and Weber 2011: p. 86)
What does this mean?
14
Components of Moral Reasoning
Evidence or
information
Moral judgment
Moral Standards
15
Components of Moral Reasoning
Moral reasoning always involves three components:
(1) An understanding of our moral standards and what they
require, prohibit, value, or condemn;
(2) Evidence or information about whether a particular person,
policy, institution, or behavior has the features that these
moral standards require, prohibit, value, or condemn; and
(3) A conclusion or moral judgment that the person, policy,
institution or behavior is prohibited or required, right or
wrong, just or unjust, valuable or condemnable, and so on.
16
Example of Moral Reasoning
A society is unjust if it does not treat minorities
equal to whites (discrimination that prevents
minorities from getting out of their society what
they contribute is unjust)
Moral
Standards
In American society, minorities take the dirty jobs
but do not get society’s benefits. 26% of blacks
and 25% of Hispanics fall below the poverty line
as compared with 12% of Whites …
U.S. society is unjust
(regarding discrimination)
Factual
information
Moral
judgment
Evidence or
information
Moral judgment
Moral Standards
17
Your Example of Moral Reasoning
No
discrimination
Being honestFreedom of choiceFood safety
PWC asks female
staff to wear
high heels
Goods with
faked materialBundle sales
Sanlu’s poisoned
milk powder
Wrong,
Discriminating
Wrong,
dishonest
Wrong, no
freedomWrong, unsafe
18
Evaluating the Rigour of Moral Reasoning
1. Moral reasoning must be logical – We should
understand the person’s moral standards,
evidence the person offers to support his/her
conclusion, and the person’s conclusion.
• The person’s moral standards together with
the evidence he/she offers should logically
support his/her conclusion.
Criteria that ethicists use to evaluate the rigor (quality) of
moral reasoning:
Evidence or
information
Moral judgment
Moral
Standards
19
2. The factual evidence cited in support of a person’s
judgment must be accurate, relevant, and complete.
3. The moral standards involved in a person’s moral
reasoning must be consistent with each other and with
the other standards and beliefs the person holds.
• Consistency also refers to the requirement that one must be
willing to accept the consequences of applying one’s moral
standards consistently to all persons in similar circumstances.
Evaluating the Rigour of Moral Reasoning
1. Recognizing the presence
of an ethical situation
2. Identifying a morally
justifiable course of action
3. Deciding to carry out the
morally justifiable course of
action
4. Actually carrying out the
decision
Four Steps Leading to Ethical Behaviour
20
Moral Reasoning
is concerned
mainly with the
second of these
processes
This means whether an action is
ethical or not depends on the moral
reasoning process of an individual.
21
We are more likely to recognize ethical situations when we
see situations that involve harm that is concentrated, likely,
proximate (nearby), imminent (coming up), and that
possibly violates our moral standards.
Ethically salient situations
There are many psychosocial
maneuvers (actions) by which
moral self-sanctions can be
disengaged from inhumane
conduct.
Selective activation and
disengagement of self-sanctions
permits different types of
conduct by people with the
same moral standards.
Disengagement of self-sanctions
22
Reading reference: Selective Moral Disengagement in the Exercise of Moral Agency
http://web.stanford.edu/~kcarmel/CC_BehavChange_Course/readings/Additional%20Resour
ces/Bandura/bandura_moraldisengagement.pdf
a) Euphemistic (inoffensive) labeling,
b) Rationalizing our actions,
c) Diminishing comparisons,
d) Displacement of responsibility,
e) Diffusion of responsibility,
f) Disregarding or distorting the harm,
g) Dehumanizing the victim, and
h) Redirecting blame.
Obstacles to recognizing an ethically salient
situation
23
Moral Disengagement
Mechanisms
(To rationalize
unethical actions)
Reading reference: Selective Moral Disengagement in the Exercise of Moral Agency
http://web.stanford.edu/~kcarmel/CC_BehavChange_Course/readings/Additional%20Re
sources/Bandura/bandura_moraldisengagement.pdf
a) Euphemistic labeling
Euphemistic (委婉的) labeling - the process of
sanitizing (淨化) language in order to detract from the
emotional intensity of the reality being referenced.
Obstacles to recognizing an ethically salient
situation
24
http://engagingpeace.com/?p=35
Song: The Euphemism Song
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5AQts
I_0MY
The substitution of a mild, indirect, or vague expression
for one thought to be offensive, harsh, or blunt.
a) Euphemistic labeling
Obstacles to recognizing an ethically salient
situation
25
Department of
War
Department of
Defense
Firing People Outsourcing,
Let you go
“All I did was ….”
The substitution of a mild, indirect, or vague expression
for one thought to be offensive, harsh, or blunt.
http://animanera82.blogspot.hk/2012/11/rationalizing-our-
mistakes.html
b) Rationalizing our actions – a process of not
perceiving reality, but of attempting to make reality fit
one’s emotions
Obstacles to recognizing an ethically salient
situation
26
Stealing
intellectual
property
‘Freedom of
information’
http://animanera82.blogspot.hk/2012/11/rationalizing-our-
mistakes.html
c) Diminishing comparisons - people who engage in
reprehensible (shameful) acts make them seem less
objectionable by comparing them to something perceived
as being far worse.
Obstacles to recognizing an ethically salient
situation
27
http://animanera82.blogspot.hk/2012/11/rationalizing-our-
mistakes.html
There are people worse than
me!
d) Displacement (shift) of Responsibility – by obscuring
(covering), or minimizing the agentive role in the harm
one causes.
Obstacles to recognizing an ethically salient
situation
28
“She made me do it.”
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/nov/24/china-executes-milk-
scandal-pair
e) Diffusion of Responsibility – the phenomena
that one feels less responsible to act in a large
group ‘I was just one of many…’
Obstacles to recognizing an ethically salient
situation
29
f) Disregarding or distorting the harm – people
avoid facing the harm they cause or minimize
it, or the evidence of harm be discredited.
Obstacles to recognizing an ethically salient
situation
30
http://cdn.zmescience.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/03/climate-dinosaurs.jpg
Nothing went
wrong!
g) Dehumanization – people are no longer viewed as
persons with feelings, hopes and concerns but as
subhuman objects (Keen, 1986; Kelman, 1973).
Obstacles to recognizing an ethically salient
situation
31
Employees are
our resources!
h) Redirecting Blame – people view themselves
as faultless victims driven to injurious conduct
by forcible provocation (被挑釁).
Obstacles to recognizing an ethically salient
situation
32
I am a victim!
It is their fault!
Competition and conflict between
firms can escalate into ‘warfare’.
Only if the:
1. Person caused or helped cause
the injury, or failed to prevent it
when he or she could and should
have. -causality
2. Person did so knowing what he or
she was doing -knowledge
3. Person did so of his or her own
free will -freedom
Conditions for a Person (or corporation)
to be Morally Responsible for an Injury
Velasquez 2012: p. 57-58 33
34
A Small Case for Discussion:
For many years, Nike, Inc. has been
accused of using sweatshops by hiring
child labors to produce footwear and
Clothing Items. Nike has denied the claims
many times, suggesting the company has
no control over sub-contracted factories.
1. Select a relevant moral standard, and
exercise moral reasoning.
2. Do you think Nike is morally responsible
for the sweatshops? Why or why not?
3. What might be the obstacles for Nike to
recognize its problem, if there is any? (You
can look for online resources to answer the questions.)