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
a purely moral choice).
consequences for you (i.e. it is
Answer the following four questions:

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.
 You also see a fat man standing sort of near the
tracks.
 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.
 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
 Would
you be willing to murder an innocent
person if it would end hunger in the world?
 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
 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.
 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?
 You
can rescue (from a fire, say) either an
ancient, priceless object or a diseased, drunken
and morally repulsive human being
A
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.

If you could use a voodoo doll to get even
with anyone who has ever wronged you,
would you do it?
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?
 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
 How
well do you know your own moral
compass? (if you don’t care you just
answered the question)
 Ok be honest with me for a second.
 If your friend came up to you with a copy of this
years AP Psychology exam would you take a
peek?
 Let’s say you are guaranteed not to get caught,
would you cheat?

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

Concepts of what is right and what is wrong
Moral dilemmas



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
 He thought this more important than the actual choice made
Kohlberg thought people acquired their morals in stages

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:


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

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

Heinz broke into the laboratory and stole the drug. The
next day, the newspapers reported the break-in 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

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
 Conventional Morality
 Postconventional Morality
Note:
Each level has two
separate stages or levels


Preconventional Morality
At this level, judgments and decisions are based on
the desire to avoid punishment or to get rewarded



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

Punishment-obedience orientation
• (obey rules to avoid punishment or fear of punishment)

Personal Reward orientation
• (do what is best for yourself)
Heinz and Preconventional Morality

Stage One (Punishment-Obedience)


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)

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!!
Conventional Morality

At this level, judgments and decisions are made based
to gain the approval of others and society and
society’s laws (norms)





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

Good boy-Nice girl orientation
• ones behavior is determined by what pleases and is approved by
others

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.
Why? Because most of you emphasis CM because
you REALLY care what your peers think of you.
Cheating is not looked at as the horrific act it once was
Many of you would not think any less of a cheater –
reinforcing people to cheat even more.
If cheating was looked at as a “Scarlet Letter”,
teenagers would rarely cheat.
Heinz and Conventional Morality
 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.
 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
Postconventional Morality

At this level, judgments and decisions are based on abstract,
personal principles (values)


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




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

Social Contract orientation
• there is a socially agreed upon standard for individual rights – but some laws
may be unjust or unfair

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
 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
 Carol

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
 What
level???
 A fourth grade girl refrains from running in the
hallway to avoid the consequences involved in
breaking that school’s rule.


Preconventional
Punishment-obedience
 “Wear
appropriate shoes on the gym floor“ Public property must be protected in the
schools


Conventional
Law and order

A middle school student agrees to throw out the gum
she is chewing to please the teacher.
 Conventional
 Good boy/ nice girl

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?
 Postconventional
 Universal ethical principle

"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..."



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.


Preconventional
Personal reward
What would you do??
n a country in Europe, a poor man named Stephen 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 Stephen, the escaped convict whom the police
had been looking for back in his hometown.
 Should
the tailor report Stephen to the
police? Why or why not?
If
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.
 Do you agree?
 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?
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?