Integrating Care And Justice Moral Development Argumentative Essay Example For Students

Integrating Care And Justice: Moral Development Argumentative Essay Matchmaker.com: Sign up now for a free trial. Date Smarter!IntegratingCare and Justice: Moral DevelopmentPart One:The criticisms of Kohlbergs moral developmentstages seem to center around three major points, his research methods,the regression of stage four, and finally his goals. The first criticism that I would like toaddress is that of his research methods. Kohlberg is often criticized fornot only his subject selection, but also the methods by which he triesto extricate data from those subjects. His initial study consisted of schoolboys from a private institution in Chicago. The problem with this is fairlyobvious, that this does not represent a significant portion of the populationto allow for generalized conclusions. In other words, how can we test someboys from Chicago and ascertain that this is how all people develop worldwide?I believe that the answer to this criticismcomes from the theory that it relates to. Kohlbergs moral developmentschema is highly dependent upon the idea that there are fundamental truthsthat cannot be dismissed. These ideas are in the ether, wound into thevery fabric that constructs human nature. Granted, his descriptions ofthe various stages also seem very dependent upon the surroundings and socialinstitutions that an individual w ould be subjected to. Yet these institutionswould be have to be built upon people, all of whom would share these ideologicaltruths. It seems fairly obvious that all people have undeniable needs,survival and some group membership. Kohlbergs stages are merely methodsby which one could fulfill these needs. For instance, Spartan societieswere adamant about maintaining the purity and strength of the civilization. Citizens saw no wrong in exposing a sick or lame baby to the elements sothat it might die. Surely an act of cruelty today, but in that society,a necessary evil The prosperity and wealth of the whole was of greaterimportance than that of the individual. In addition to these justifications, additionalresearch substantiated Kohlbergs claims. Different subjects were tested,from all ages and regions, and the same conclusions were drawn from thedata. Assuming that these conclusions are correct, and the data leads tothe same interpretation, is there any other possibility? This argumentseems most impressive, especially considering the differences between peoplethat are evident in everyday life. Similarities on such an abstract levelmust be supportive of Kohlbergs claims. Another criticism of Kohlberg assumes thathis subjects are biased, but proposes that his methods are even worse. To get the perspective of another person, he confronts them with seeminglyimpossible, unrealistic, and confrontational dilemmas. I, myself, had troublewith the Heinz dilemma because of my inability to believe that it was somethingthat could take place in the real world. Even more so, the situation wassomething that was very foreign, and very hard to relate to. Anyone whohas contemplated something very life changing, like a death in the family,then experienced it, understands how different it is to actually be facedwith the dilemma. When theorizing, it is hard to maintain the intimateconnection needed to truly react to a moral dilemma. My defense of this situation comes froma lack of a suitable alternative. True moral dilemmas are not only rare,but extremely hard to document. When faced with a situation that demandsnot only ones complete attention, but emotional vigor, it is really hardto find time to document or discuss feelings (let alone the motivationto do so!). For example, looking at the Heinz dilemma, it would be veryhard to explain why one was chasinga man around while he tried to finda cure for his dying wife. An even less enticing alternative would be tryingto sit him down and discuss how he was feeling. So, the only proper and effective way toget a response is to propose a hypothetical situation, and document replies. It may not elicit the pure data that one desires, but according to theHeisenberg principle, it is impossible to measure anything without influencingit. Some research methods indicate that it is more important to followones thoughts through the reasoning process, rather than just asking forpossible solutions. However, I have to believe, and justify from personalexperience, that people have incredibly low attention spans. Asking someoneto explain how they think through a decision is almost as likely to yielduseful data as asking them to volunteer their PIN numbers. It seems asthough people are able not only to be influenced, but to influence themselvesinto making different decisions. This can lead to the endless circleconversation. The criticism that I find most interestingis the supposed regression that occurs when going from stage three tofour. Personally, I must agree with the idea that it is, in fact, a prioritychange. I also believe that this comes from my undeniable faith in thegoodness of humanity. I would like to believe that in their heart andsoul, everyone is good natured. So, to see that one must develop stagefour is disappointing. Yet, I will agree that it is necessary. It is a comprehensive step, and an improvement from the stage three pointof view. No matter how enticing and supposedly noble stage three appears,it is lacking components necessary to promote the functionality of theperson who holds it. A loss of innocence is not necessarily a detriment,especially when considering personal experience. Skin tends to thickenas one gets older. Therefore, is it necessarily a regression that someonewould tend to trust others less, and be more interested maintaining socialinstitutions?I believe that this in no way representsa regression, but rather a broadened scope and interpretation of surroundings. At level three, you are totally interested in fulfilling the obligationsthat are expected of you. The world seems a very small place, one personand your surroundings, people, places, and things. If the requirementsthat are expected from day to day, from people who are very close to youcan be fulfilled, that is the absolute goal. As one grows older, you areexposed to more of the institutions and methods that are integral to therelationship and interaction of all people. The rules have changed. Thereare more requirements, more expected of you. Unfortunately, every persondoes not have limitless resources with which to meet all of these goals. So, priorities must change. New social institutions now appear to be thedriving force in happiness and security. So, they now encompass all thepriorities that drove a person at stage three. To fulfill the previousstages goals with this new scope, one must dedicate resources to it. Finally, I would like to discuss Kohlbergspoint of view when considering what I call his goals. Some have criticizedthat Kohlberg is trying to objectify morality to a Natural Law, or justiceperspective. Although he does seem to abstract characteristics to a societallevel, I do not believe that his is an honest attempt to undermine thegathered data integrity. In other words, although it seems he is drawingthe same conclusions over and over, he is not distorting it to do so. Kohlberg is often criticized for a libertarianideological bias in his conclusions of gathered data. In addition, it hasbeen observed that his conclusions are carefully explained, argued anddefended, but they can be twisted and contorted to fit any range of differentopinions. They mandate an agreement to social contract, that being usedas a philosophical base from which moral guidelines are built. But socialsystems differ from region to region, and within regions by people. I believe that the criticisms themselvesdo not harm Kohlbergs views, but rather enforce them. As I have discussedbefore, there are undeniable personal needs that every individual worksto fulfill, regardless of stated motives. Everyone needs to survive, andto be emotionally fulfilled by belonging. The systems by which people administertheir interaction are simply tools by which they meet those needs. However,I have also said that I have a flawless devotion to the goodness of mankind. Thereby, I believe that people are trying to better their situation relativeto one another and the situation of society as a whole. Kohlberg may viewthese moral ideals as too socially interactive, but isnt that what thetrue goal of any of this is? People truly feel good when they have mettheir desires, and one of those is to exist with other people in a cohesivesocial system. As unbelievable as it may sound, Kohlbergs findings donot represent distorted data, but rather the incredible coincidence thatall people, on some level, are inherently similar. It would be unfair to try to enforce theideas that come with Kohlbergian justice without also defending Carol Gilliganstheme of caring. Therefore, I would like to address three criticisms: theparadox of self-care, the idea that care is a regressive movement, andfinally, the seemingly huge jump from stage one to two. I personally find the self-care characteristicof caring to be the most interesting to discuss. During class sessions,everyone seemed most interested with this perspective. It seems as thoughit is the ethical issue that plagues society. Where does the balance liebetween seeking to fulfill ones own interests, and meeting the requirementsplaced upon one by others? I believe that we all recognize a need to initializeand solidify a healthy caring for oneself before it is possible to be outwardlycaring for others. However, the way that this method is proposedmakes it appear as though it might be a cop-out. My perspective comes from the fact thatthere is no really appropriate way to show self-care without seeming self-centered. No matter how little one dedicates to oneself, no matter what the circumstances,someone will see it as too much. Yet, there is no effective way to showcompassion, respect, or contentment with the outside world without firstdeveloping all of these attributes within oneself. When constructing thisself-persona, the goal is not to become conceited, but rather to developa foundation upon which more complex interactions can be constructed. Ofcourse, any well intentioned act can be construed into something that itis not. I truly believe that this is the case when critiquing self-care. I would also like to argue that self-careas a whole is not what it seems to be, nor is it what its name implies. Rather, it is a competence at a certain level personal and societal development. At earlier times in ones life, the easiest way to contribute to surroundingsis to not harm them. For instance, it would not be expected of a toddlerto assist in the preparation of dinner. The best that he could hope todo is not destroy anything! At this level of development adequacy is definedby not harming something, not necessarily working towards its betterment. Do Computers Think? EssayLaws, rules and regulations take over for individualistic judgement, helpingto herd everyone into the proper behavior. With this new system, we obviously losesome of the aspects of stage three that were most attractive. We no longerhave the family dedicated, honor above-all-else person that we did in theprevious stage. He has been replaced with someone who is now, at best,a law abiding citizen. The principles of stage three have been incorporated,though not fully, into the pragmatism of stage four. For instance, a lawlessor unconventional act that would not have been tolerated at stage threewould be ignored at stage four so that the integrity of the social systemwould not be compromised. We lose the hardcore justice orientation, andreplace it with a more flexible society-inclusive system. Increasing the size of anything to encompassmore increases its complexity. Complexity means that this system is notonly hard to maintain, but increasingly slow to acquiesce to the changingneeds of the people. It takes a lot of time to change an entire societysinterpretations. Status-quo stagnation occurs very quickly, and reformseemingly takes forever. So, imagine that we could take stage four,plop in into a blender, add some stage three, and come out with an evenbetter system. What would we do? This is the next question to be addressed. Looking at stage threes and stage fours adequacies and areas of lacking,we need to incorporate pieces of both into an entirely new system. The real goal is to somehow take stagethrees interpersonal nobility and faith, and give them to a stage fourperson. At the same time, we do not want to undermine the societal interactivenessof stage four! I believe that what we end up with is the theoretical modelof a democracy. For instance, we take stage fours society agreed uponcontract (assuming that it is somewhat noble, as opposed to something fromthe Third Reich). We now assume that an act has been committed that bordersbetween criminality and unconventionalism. How could we approach this?Stage three says: If it isnt a threat to my immediate person, or thosewho surround me, then dont worry about it. Stage four would reply: Whatof its effect on the social system, is it against the law? What we reallyneed to do is combine the two perspectives. If this act is first viewedto warrant public action (an arrest, trial, or hearing), then that shouldbe the course of action. It is what takes place next that is very important. During the proceedings, each and every person must come to terms with itin their own way. They must decide if it is destructive, constructive,or indifferent. As a group, they must decide on the best course of action. This way we have incorporated the individualistic judgement and nobilityof each person and fused it with societal administration. In addition,we have allowed each person to place part of their own golden rule interpretationinto the system. By carefully combining the features oftwo very different stages, we have come up with a system that is bettersuited to meeting the needs of a population. Unfortunately, it was inventedhundreds of years ago, and implemented in the United States Constitution. Granted, it does not work perfectly, but it seems a suitable compromisewhen considering the alternatives. It may be a slow process, and one thatcan be abused to fit ones needs, but it is the only one that incorporatesthe individual into the molding of the system. The final part of this paper will be dedicatedto the combination of two very different arenas of thought, the moral developmentpaths of justice and care. Some have argued for and against each, somehave argued for and against both. What we will try to do is to build anentirely new moral system on the strengths of these two. Theoretically,we should come up with a super-competent solution, one that is better thanthe two individually. Rather than try to develop this step by step andpoint by point (which would be intolerable after about the second line),Id like to just give my interpretation of what the final product wouldlook like. One note: the most that can be possibly asked of any personin any system is that they give 100 percent all the time. Therefore, anytheorizing that we do is subject to the fact that people only have theresources to accomplish certain things. To combine the best features of two diametricallydifferent institutions of thought we have to first identify what thosefeatures are. Kohlbergian justice is the pragmatic, society oriented varietythat is admittedly dedicated to preserving social systems. Gilligans caringis predicated on good interaction between people. Although they sound likethey might be trying to achieve the same things, they are going at it intwo separate ways. Kohlberg wants to invent a system by which all peopleknow what is expected of them. Rules are proposed, agreed upon, set down,and enforced. Each and every person knows what is appropriate behavior. Even at stage five, the supposed highest known stage of Kohlbergs development,the society rates very high. There may be different ways to approach runninga society, but there is no question that there must be something runningit. Gilligan seems to agree that people needrules by which they can relate to one another. However, she seems to delvedeeper into the actual motivations of those rules. While obeying the regulationsof society, you must also show some sort of compassion and caring for otherpeople. As a trivial example, Kohlbergs system would say that it was rudeto interrupt someone who is speaking. Gilligan would say that merely notinterrupting is not adequate. Instead, you must show interest in what thatperson is trying to say. You must somehow relate with the speaker on somelevel. In doing so, you not only draw more from his words, but you showthat you can identify with him. Another feature of Gilligans work thatI feel should be integrated into the justice theme is that of self-care. When put down in words it seems somewhat egotistical and self-centered. Kohlberg would be interested in self-care only if it contributed to maintainingsociety. But balancing the needs of the many, and the needs of the fewis the hardest part about effectively administering any group of people. Some individuals will have very menial needs, others will say they requireluxuries. The key is to provide a method by which all people can fulfillthose needs. Self-care will differ significantly between even similar people. So, rather than trying to meet their needs outright, it is better to justprovide a chance by which they can provide for themselves. Thus achievinga balance between self-care and still allotted care for others. (I know,Im drawing the democracy parallelism again, sorry!)Kohlberg provides us with the minimal frameworkby which regulations maintain the necessities of people. If his guidelinesare followed, it can be said that everyone who lives by them will be atleast partially satisfied. Gilligan, on the other hand, shows us that thereis a much deeper level to which we can all aspire. Putting effort intoeveryday interaction, from talking to listening, can greatly enhance everyexperience. In doing so, we are not only improving the quality of our ownlives, but also the lives of those we interact with. Another aspect of caring that I would liketo bring into the justice world is included in level three, the highestlevel of caring. It states that there are absolutely no black or whiteissues. What might be correct for one person, is not necessarily the samefor another. This would fill a huge hole in the Kohlberg moral developmentsystem. Justice is largely criticized because it forces everyone intoa social group. It then slaps some rules down, and expects that they areapplicable to everyone. Gilligan states that this is not true, but rather,everything is a shade of gray. Be careful though! This does not mean thatrules are now not applicable to anyone. Rather, it states that we mustuse our judgement when considering transgressions of the law. There maybe special circumstances that need to be addressed. Finally, Kohlbergs critics have said thatstage five is too arbitrary. It is not easy to tell exactly how much oneowes to the social contract, or what to do with people who do not necessarilyagree with it. Gilligan would argue that there is a way to resolve thisconflict of interests through dialogue, attention, and compromise. WhereKohlbergs system leave opportunity for arbitration, Gilligans says thatthere is no need. Instead of giving people a hard set of rules to liveby, or demanding their surrender to a contract, we could talk to them individuallyand address the situation. At the same time, justice maintains thatthere are undeniable rules that must be obeyed. So, we are combining thebest of both worlds. Using Kohlbergs justice orientation, we are guaranteeingthe sanctity of all those who have already agreed to the social contract. Concurrently, were taking it upon ourselves to listen to a non-supportiveperson, and possibly come to a small compromise to fit their needs. In conclusion, it seems that there is definitelya way to combine the Kohlberg justice theme and the Gilligan caring themeof moral development. Mr. Kohlberg provides a method to police a societythat does not include 100 percent utopian citizens. Ms. Gilligan givesus the ability to relate to each and every person, as a person. She indicatesways that we can identify with their perspectives, understand their needs,and compromise. Although the real world seems infinitely more complex thaneither of these models, they bear a frightening resemblance to real societiesand real people. Maybe someday, a perfect model will be constructed, judgedby a perfect path of moral development. Until then, I hope that I havefound a good combination of these two ideas. One last side note: I think I could spendweeks typing a paper on this subject. There are thousands of facets ofeach system that could fit into the others potential flaws. However, Ithink Ive been long-winded enough as it is. I have tried to make my pointsas succinct and reasonable as possible, but without sacrificing exactlywhat I wanted to say. Thank you for your patience.