Blel Rginer Please answer the FIRST question on your sheet and actually think it.

What are some schemas you have created about specific morals? –No seatbelt = dangerous/illegal= WRONG

Ringeth of Bell “Remember back to our discussion yesterday about –Schemas –Symbolic thought –Cognitive development –Morals “ Now, how do morals develop and change as we develop cognitively?

 Animated Heinz Dilemma  Video Video

 In Europe, a woman was near death from cancer. One drug might save her, a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The druggist was charging $2,000, ten times what the drug cost him to make. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about 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" and that he discovered the drug and intended to make money on it. The husband got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug for his wife. (Kohlberg, 1969)

1. Should Heinz steal the drug? Why or why not? 2. If Heinz doesn't love his wife, should he steal the drug for her? Why or why not? 3. Suppose the person dying is not his wife but a stranger. Should Heinz steal the drug for a stranger? Why or why not? 4. Why should people do everything they can to save another's life? 5. It is against the law for Heinz to steal? Does that make it morally wrong? Why or why not? 6. Why should people generally do everything they can to avoid breaking the law? How does this relate to Heinz's case?

Kohlberg’s Moral Development

Kohlberg’s Theory  How do we develop a sense of right and wrong? Similar progression as seen in Piaget’s stage theory. We use REASON to decide our morality, and as we change, so does our reasoning. (cognitive)

 Lawrence Kohlberg – in the 1970’s proposed most influential theory of moral development  Case study approach (like Piaget) – posed moral dilemmas to children, adolescents, and adults to compare their reasoning for moral decisions (didn’t care about actual decision).  Found predicable, age-related stages.  Wrote the Heinz Dilemma to record the answers people would give to assess their morals.

Preconventional Level Birth-9 years old STAGE 1- AVOID PUNISHMENT STAGE Moral Reasoning- Right and wrong related to consequences. No internalization of rules or values. What is right? Whatever actions will help avoid punishments. Answer to Heinz’s Dilemma?

Preconventional Stage Birth-9 years old Stage 2- SELFISH STAGE Moral Reasoning- I will do whatever helps ME and doesn’t hurt others. What is right? Things that will get me a reward. Answer to Heinz’s Dilemma?

Conventional Stage -most adults who understand they are a part of society and follow social norms Stage 3- Conformity Approval Stage Moral Reasoning- I will do what is right because that makes people happy. What is right? I will do whatever will make the most people happy. Answer to Heinz’s Dilemma?

Conventional Stage -most adults who understand they are a part of society and follow social norms Stage 4- Law-and-Order Moral Reasoning- These are the rules and I will follow them as best as I can What is right? The rules are right and I have to follow them as best as I can. Answer to H.D.?

Postconventional Stage -10%-15% adults Stage 5- Human Rights Moral reasoning- Rules should be followed to keep the structure of society. What is right? Following the rules to maintain social order Answer to H.D.?

Postconventional Stage -10%-15% adults Stage 6- Human ethics Moral reasoning- internal realization of what is universally right and wrong. What is right? Whatever is best for HUMANITY, and whatever is fair for everyone. If the rules are unjust, I will break them for a good cause. Answer to H.D.?

Listen with your eyes and ears! Kohlberg for the visual learners!Kohlberg for the visual learners! How would people at each stage of Kohlberg’s moral development answer to the Heinz Dilemma?Heinz Dilemma?

Examples from your life? An event in your life where your moral reasoning was defined.. Or a MAJOR event that defined what your morals were at any given point in time?

A Real Life Example As a young woman, Kathleen Soliah was involved with the radical movement known as the Symbionese Liberation Army, best remembered for the kidnapping of newspaper heiress Patty Hearst. In 1976, Soliah was indicted with others for planting pipe bombs under two Los Angeles police cruisers. The bombs were discovered before any damage was done, but Kathleen went "underground" and was never captured. She settled in St. Paul, Minnesota, changed her name to Sara Jane Olson, married, raised three children, and was an active and much-admired member of her community. In 1999, after the television show "America’s Most Wanted" featured the crime, Olson was captured in her hometown on her way to give English lessons to immigrants studying for their U.S. citizenship examination. On January 18, 2002, she was sentenced to a twenty-year-to-life prison term after entering a plea of guilty. (She says she agreed to the plea only because she did not believe she could get a fair trial in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks.) Was Sara Jane Olson’s arrest, conviction, and punishment fair, moral, and/or just? Why or why not?