1. Moral Schemas
This presentation draws heavily from Narvaez, D. (2005). The Neo-Kohlbergian Tradition and Beyond: Schemas, Expertise, and Character (2005), pp

2. Schemas
Prior knowledge and skills organized to explain connections and structure one’s problem solving practice.

3. Experts and schema Experts are qualitatively different from novices.
First, experts have large, rich, organized networks of schemas, containing a great deal of knowledge about the domain of study.
Second, because they have more and better-organized knowledge in a domain, experts are better at selecting what to perceive.
Third, experts know what knowledge to access, which procedures to apply, how to apply them, and when it is appropriate.

4. Personal interests schema
Develops in childhood.
Using this type of thinking, a person filters moral stimulus information on the basis of its effects on matters of personal interest.
There is no sociocentric perspective.
This kind of thinking appeals to the personal stake that a decision-maker has in the situation; prudence and personal advantage are considered virtues.

5. Maintaining norms schema
able to take into account the welfare of unknown others.
begins to discern the advantages of role systems and established practices.
perceives that there is a need for generally accepted norms to govern the social collective and that these norms must apply to everyone in the society.
centers so much on law and order that it is inconceivable that order would exist without upholding the law.
Without the law and one’s duty to uphold it and the roles that derive from order, there would be anarchy.
No felt need to appeal to moral criteria beyond the law itself.
norms schema offers a sense of moral certainty, invigorating many of its adherents with missionary zeal.

6. Postconventional schema
Four elements constitute the postconventional schema:
primacy of moral criteria in making decisions about social cooperation, (i.e., a law does not trump moral goals; laws are instruments of morality, not moral themselves);
appeal to an ideal rather than a rejection of the status quo for its own sake;
moral obligations based on sharable ideals rather than ethnocentric preference or personal intuition (this requires an openness to scrutiny and debate, in contrast to the ideals of conventional thinking, which are shielded by the privileges of authority); and
full reciprocity that views the application of laws uniformly, like conventional thinking, but also scrutinizes the laws themselves for fairness (laws are subjected to tests of logical consistency, coherence with accepted practice, and community experience).

7. Claims Goodness claims – what we value Process claims – how we decide
Justice claims – what is right
What role does Consequentialism play in determining what is right?

8. Heinz Dilemma
In Europe, 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 make. He paid $400 for the radium and charged $4,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money and tried every legal means, but he could only get together about $2,000, 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 if." So, having tried every legal means, Heinz gets desperate and considers breaking into the man's store to steal the drug for his wife.