You are driving a minivan with 5 other

You are driving a minivan with 5 other men in it. The men are complete strangers to you. You turn around a sharp curve and find yourself on a narrow bridge over a gaping chasm. A woman with her back toward you is pushing a stroller with a baby in it. She cannot get out of the way and you cannot stop in time to save her. You can swerve off the bridge, killing everyone in the minivan. You only have two choices: swerve and kill everyone in the minivan (S) or continue on the bridge and kill the woman with the baby (C) Assume that in either case there are no legal consequences for you (i. e. it is a purely moral choice).

Answer the following four questions: Ø Ø Do you swerve and kill yourself along with the other men, or do you keep going and kill the woman with the baby? Suppose you could get out of the car before it flies off the bridge. Do you swerve killing the other men but saving yourself, or do you keep going killing the woman and the baby? Suppose that the other men are suspected murderers whom you are transporting to the courthouse for a trial. Do you swerve, killing them but saving yourself, or do you keep going, killing the woman and the baby? Suppose that the other men are convicted murderers whom you are transporting to prison for lifetime sentences without parole. Do you swerve, killing them but saving yourself, or do you keep going, killing the woman and the baby?

You're on a hill. You have a rifle and perfect aim. You see at a distance a train out of control and flying at these four people. You somehow know that it will kill all of them. Ø You also see a fat man standing sort of near the tracks. Ø You realize that if you shoot him from where you are, he'll fall on the tracks, his mass will stop the train, and the other four will be saved. Ø Nobody sees you, so you don't have to worry about being tried for murder. Except, of course, in your mind. So, do you shoot the fat man? He wouldn't have died unless you shot him Ø

Ø A cave-in occurs while you and a stranger are in a concrete room deep in a mineshaft. Before the phone goes dead, you learn the entire mine is sealed and the air hole being drilled will not reach you for 30 hours. If you both take sleeping pills from the medicine chest, the oxygen will last for only 20 hours. Both of you can’t survive; alone, one of you might. After you both realize this, the stranger takes a couple sleeping pills and says that it is in God’s hands, and falls asleep. There is also a loaded gun in the room with you. What do you do?

Ø Would you be willing to murder an innocent person if it would end hunger in the world? Ø You are offered ten million dollars for the following act. Before you are ten pistols – only one of which is loaded. You must pick up one of the pistols, point it at the forehead of an unknown person bound and gagged in a seat before you, and pull the trigger. If you pick an unloaded pistol, you walk away with the money

Ø Do you believe in capital punishment? Would you be willing to execute a person sentenced to death by the courts if you were selected by lottery to do so, and that person would go free if you refused? Assume you know ‘no’ details of the trial. Ø You and a person you love deeply are placed in separate rooms with a button next to each of you. You know that you will be killed unless one of you presses your button before sixty minutes pass; furthermore, the first to press the button will save the other person, but will immediately be killed. What would you do?

Ø You can rescue (from a fire, say) either an ancient, priceless object or a diseased, drunken and morally repulsive human being ØA doctor can only operate on one patient - he has to choose between a kind, obscure family man and a gifted artist who is also a horrible human being. Ø If you could use a voodoo doll to get even with anyone who has ever wronged you, would you do it?

ØA pregnant woman leading a group of people out of a cave on a coast is stuck in the mouth of that cave. In a short time high tide will be upon them, and unless she is unstuck, they will all be drowned except the woman, whose head is out of the cave. Fortunately, (or unfortunately, ) someone has with him a stick of dynamite. There seems no way to get the pregnant woman loose without using the dynamite which will inevitably kill her; but if they do not use it everyone will drown. What should they do?

The Fat Man and the Impending Doom Ø A fat man leading a group of people out of a cave on a coast is stuck in the mouth of that cave. In a short time high tide will be upon them, and unless he is unstuck, they will all be drowned except the fat man, whose head is out of the cave. [But, fortunately, or unfortunately, someone has with him a stick of dynamite. ] There seems no way to get the fat man loose without using [that] dynamite which will inevitably kill him; but if they do not use it everyone will drown. What should they do?

You are an emergency worker that has just been called to the scene of an accident. When you arrive you see that the car belongs to your wife. Fearing the worst you rush over to see she is trapped in her car with another man. She sees you and although barely conscious, she manages to mouth the words “I’m sorry”… You don’t understand, but her look answers you question. The man next to her is her lover with whom she’s been having an affair. You reel back in shock, devastated by what her eyes have just told you. As you step back, the wreck in front of you comes into focus. You see your wife is seriously hurt and she needs attention straight away. Even if she gets attention there’s a very high chance she’ll die. You look at the seat next to her and see her lover. He’s bleeding heavily from a wound to the neck and you need to stem the flow of blood immediately. It will only take about 5 minutes to stop, but it will mean your wife will definitely die. If you tend to your wife however, the man will bleed to death despite the fact it could have been avoided. Who would you choose to work on?

Ø You are an inmate in a concentration camp. A sadistic guard is about to hang your son who tried to escape and wants you to pull the chair from underneath him. He says that if you don’t he will not only kill your son but some other innocent inmate as well. You don’t have any doubt that he means what he says. What should you do?

Moral Development How your moral thinking changes from the womb to the tomb

Ø How well do you know your own moral compass? (if you don’t care you just answered the question) Ø Ok be honest with me for a second. Ø If your friend came up to you with a copy of this years AP Psychology exam would you take a peek? Ø Let’s say you are guaranteed not to get caught, would you cheat? Ø Ø I am not interested in whether you would or would not cheat, rather I am interested in how you came to your decisions. This is the study of morality Kohlberg by Lawrence

Morality l Concepts of what is right and what is wrong Moral dilemmas l Hypothetical situations in which people must make a difficult decision Kohlberg defined a persons level of moral reasoning based on how they defended his or her position when faced with moral dilemmas l He thought this more important than the actual choice made Ø Kohlberg thought people acquired their morals in stages Ø l From a self-centered focus to a higher level that focused on the good of society Note: Kohlberg “not everyone makes this transition”

Kohlberg’s Stages of Morality Ok, this is what Kohlberg did: l l He asked people of different ages to read the famous Heinz Dilemma (and it has nothing to do with ketchup) He then asked them what they would do and more importantly why.

The Heinz Dilemma Scenario 1 Ø A woman was near death from a unique kind of cancer. There is a drug that might save her, that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug costs $4, 000 per dosage, ten times what the drug had cost him to make. 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. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or to let him pay later. But the druggist refused. Should Heinz break into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?

Scenario 2 Ø Heinz broke into the laboratory and stole the drug. The next day, the newspapers reported the breakin and theft. Brown, a police officer and a friend of Heinz remembered seeing Heinz last evening, behaving suspiciously near the laboratory. Later that night, he saw Heinz running away from the laboratory. Should Brown report what he saw? Why or why not?

Scenario 3 Ø Officer Brown reported what he saw. Heinz was arrested and brought to court. If convicted, he faces up to two years in jail. Heinz was found guilty. Should the judge sentence Heinz to prison? Why or why not?

From his research Kohlberg identified three levels of moral reasoning Preconventional Morality Ø Conventional Morality Ø Postconventional Morality Ø Note: Each level has two separate stages or levels

Ø Ø Preconventional Morality At this level, judgments and decisions are based on the desire to avoid punishment or to get rewarded l l l This is the morality exhibited by young children If you do not cheat on the AP test because you are afraid that you will get caught and punished you are using this. Used by kids when told to clean their room and they will be rewarded by watching tv or some other reward • they are cleaning not because he feels some internal sense of moral goodness to clean – but rather, they want the reward Two levels l Punishment-obedience orientation • (obey rules to avoid punishment or fear of punishment) l Personal Reward orientation • (do what is best for yourself)

Heinz and Preconventional Morality Ø Stage One (Punishment-Obedience) l Ø If you think Heinz is wrong to steal the drug because he could get caught and punished you are using PCM. Stage Two (Personal Reward) l If you think Heinz was right to steal the drug because he will be rewarded with his wife’s life, then you are still using PCM. Remember…. It is not about the decision, but rather the how's and why’s you go about reasoning it!!

Ø Conventional Morality At this level, judgments and decisions are made based to gain the approval of others and society’s laws (norms) l l Ø This is the most common moral stage for teenagers Your morality is based on how you think people will view you You think to yourselves, “how will my peers view me”. If you choose not to cheat on the AP test because if you get caught your friends will think you are a cheater, you have used CM. (or if you cheat because if you don’t they will think you are a loser you have used CM) Two levels l Good boy-Nice girl orientation • ones behavior is determined by what pleases and is approved by others l Law and order orientation • authority must be respected and the social order maintained

Conventional Morality We have the huge cheating problem in our educational system today. Ø Why? Because most of you emphasis CM because you REALLY care what your peers think of you. Ø Cheating is not looked at as the horrific act it once was Ø Many of you would not think any less of a cheater – reinforcing people to cheat even more. Ø If cheating was looked at as a “Scarlet Letter”, teenagers would rarely cheat. Ø

Heinz and Conventional Morality Ø In the Heinz example, whether you think people will like him and think of him as hero or if you think people will think him a criminal, you are using conventional morality. Ø It’s wrong for him to steal because it is against the law and he wants society to approve of his actions so he doesn’t steal

Ø Postconventional Morality At this level, judgments and decisions are based on abstract, personal principles (values) l l Decisions can not be defined by society’s laws, because “justice” may not be reflected in societal law You rely on what is called • Universal ethical principles • Your belief in an absolute right and wrong l l l Ø Laws can be seen as arbitrary depending on the situation People realize that laws are important to keep society running smoothly, but also know that they can be too rigid in some cases So you would cheat or not cheat on the AP test depending on what your own personal set of ethics are Two levels l Social Contract orientation • there is a socially agreed upon standard for individual rights – but some laws may be unjust or unfair l Universal Ethical Principle orientation • “good” and “right” are based on individual conscience and personal views of justice, human dignity and equality

Heinz and Postconventional Morality Ø In the Heinz example, you may believe he was justified because a woman’s life outweighs the store owner’s right of personal property

Criticisms of Kohlberg Ø Carol l Gilligan Criticized Kohlberg’s theory because he only focused on boys • Kohlberg said women’s morality is less fully developed than men’s • Gilligan said that boys have a more absolute perspective on morality • While girls tend to look at the situation and relationships of the people involved before making a decision

Kohlberg’s ideas at work in the classroom Ø What level? ? ? Ø A fourth grade girl refrains from running in the hallway to avoid the consequences involved in breaking that school’s rule. l l Preconventional Punishment-obedience Ø “Wear appropriate shoes on the gym floor“ Public property must be protected in the schools l l Conventional Law and order

Ø A middle school student agrees to throw out the gum she is chewing to please the teacher. l Conventional l Good boy/ nice girl Ø At a high school for girls in Chicago, math classes studied demographic facts related to hunger , and religion classes discussed the question of "What is our ethical and religious responsibility for the starving people of the world? l Postconventional l Universal ethical principle

Ø "Please remember that this is your room and your class. The behavior and participation of each person will shape the type of learning that will occur. Since one person's behavior affects everyone else, I request that everyone in the class be responsible for classroom management. To ensure that our rights are protected and upheld, the following laws have been established for this classroom. . . " l l Ø Postconventional Social contract A student offers to be last in line when going to the cafeteria so she can be first in line when going out for recess. l l Preconventional Personal reward

What would you do? ? In a country in Europe, a poor man named Nick could find no work, nor could his sister and brother. Without money, he stole food and medicine that they needed. He was captured and sentenced to prison for six years. After a couple of years, he escaped from the prison and went to live in another part of the country under a new name. He saved money and slowly built up a big factory. He gave his workers the highest wages and used most of his profits to build a hospital for people who couldn’t afford good medical care. Twenty years had passed when a tailor recognized the factory owner as being Nick, the escaped convict whom the police had been looking for back in his hometown.

Ø Should the tailor report Nick to the police? Why or why not? ØIf you could use a voodoo doll to get even with anyone who has ever wronged you, would you do it?

In 1842, a ship struck an iceberg and more than 30 survivors were crowded into a lifeboat intended to hold 7. As a storm threatened, it became obvious that the lifeboat would have to be lightened if anyone were to survive. The captain reasoned that the right thing to do in this situation was to force some individuals to go over the side and drown. Such an action, he reasoned, was not unjust to those thrown overboard, for they would have drowned anyway. If he did nothing, however, he would be responsible for the deaths of those whom he could have saved. Some people opposed the captain's decision. They claimed that if nothing were done and everyone died as a result, no one would be responsible for these deaths. On the other hand, if the captain attempted to save some, he could do so only by killing others and their deaths would be his responsibility; this would be worse than doing nothing and letting all die. The captain rejected this reasoning. Since the only possibility for rescue required great efforts of rowing, the captain decided that the weakest would have to be sacrificed. In this situation it would be absurd, he thought, to decide by drawing lots who should be thrown overboard. As it turned out, after days of hard rowing, the survivors were rescued and the captain was tried for his action. If you had been on the jury, how would you have decided?

A madman who has threatened to explode several bombs in crowded areas has been apprehended. Unfortunately, he has already planted the bombs and they are scheduled to go off in a short time. It is possible that hundreds of people may die. The authorities cannot make him divulge the location of the bombs by conventional methods. He refuses to say anything and requests a lawyer to protect his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. In exasperation, some high level official suggests torture. This would be illegal, of course, but the official thinks that it is nevertheless the right thing to do in this desperate situation. Ø Do you agree? Ø If you do, would it also be morally justifiable to torture the mad bomber’s innocent wife if that is the only way to make him talk? Why? Ø

In the novel Sophie's Choice, a Polish woman, Sophie Zawistowska, is arrested by the Nazis and sent to the Auschwitz death camp. On arrival, she is "honored" for not being a Jew by being allowed a choice: One of her children will be spared the gas chamber if she chooses which one. In an agony of indecision, as both children are being taken away, she suddenly does choose. They can take her daughter, who is younger and smaller. Sophie hopes that her older and stronger son will be better able to survive, but she loses track of him and never does learn of his fate. Did she do the right thing? Years later, haunted by the guilt of having chosen between her children, Sophie commits suicide. Should she have felt guilty?

Ø Dilemmas