TRIFLES
TRIFLES DISCUSSION FLOW
1. Review of the Four Moral Theories (30’)
1.1. Let’s start with a brief review of the four moral theories – or categories of moral
reflection and judgment – that were outlined in the reading.
• What matters – what is the core idea in each theory?
• How is “moral” defined?
• What is the basic approach to resolving moral problems?
2. Application of the Theories to Trifles – Student Defense of Positions (35’)
2.1. Let’s apply these theories now as we discuss Trifles. Your assignment was to
choose one of these theories and apply it – systematically – to either justify or
criticize what Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters did.
2.2. Utilitarianism or consequence-based theory
2.2.1. Probes for Justifications
• Which consequences did you take into account that you felt justified the
women’s actions? Impact on Mrs. Wright? On the two women? On their
marriages? On the community?
• Did you have to weight consequences, that is, to decide that some were
worth more than others? How did you do that?
• How certain are you that the consequences you anticipate will happen?
Why are you so sure?
2.2.2. Probes for Critiques
• Even if the women’s assumptions are right and Mrs. Wright did kill her
husband, how likely is it that she will ever kill again?
• Don’t you believe that a miscarriage of justice is about to occur? The
men seem to have a strong conviction that Mrs. Wright is guilty.
2.3. Kantianism or obligation-based theory
2.3.1. Probes for Justifications
• Did you see Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters operating out of a sense of duty?
How would you characterize that duty? What is it based on?
• How do you compare that obligation to others they have – to their
husbands, or to “the law” which Mrs. Peters is “married to” [Mrs. Peters
is the Sheriff’s wife]?
• Why, in your view, does their duty to Mrs. Wright dominate these other
obligations?
2.3.2. Probes for Critiques
• The intent of Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters may very well have been to
circumvent the law, but what should they do if they believe the law
won’t be administered fairly?
2.4. Liberal individualism, or rights-based theory
2.4.1. Probes for Justifications
• Whose rights did you see Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters protecting?
• How sure are you that those rights would be violated?
1
•
What other rights might be placed in jeopardy by the women’s support of
Mrs. Wright?
2.4.2. Probes for Critiques
• But Mr. Wright is dead now. We can’t bring him back! Why are you so
sure that Mrs. Wright will be treated fairly?
2.5. Communitarianism or community-based theory
2.5.1. Probes for Justification
• Which community did you focus on in your justification? The town? The
Wright family? The community of women? (Is there such a thing?)
• How did you decide which community to focus on?
2.5.2. Probes for Critiques
• If it ever came to light that Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters hid evidence,
belief in the community’s respect for law would be compromised. But
how likely is this? Why do you think their actions will be found out?
• Why isn’t the “community of women” an institution with the same
weight and import as the town community?
3. What Do We Really Know? Separating Facts from Assumptions (30’)
3.1. We have lots of plausible moral positions. How should we decide among them?
Let’s start with something pretty fundamental. I assume that all of this discussion
is based on a similar appreciation of the facts. After all, we have only an 11-page
play. What facts can we be sure of? Let’s list them out.
3.2. What assumptions did you make?
• What do you think Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters actually did? Hid evidence?
Protected Mrs. Wright? Took a stand? Broke the law? What are you basing
your belief on?
• What do you assume will happen to Mrs. Wright? What is that based on?
• What did you assume about the dead bird? How did it get killed? What do you
think the bird meant – to Mrs. Wright? To Mr. Wright? What is that based on?
• How did you understand Mrs. Wright’s behavior when Mr. Hale visited the
house? What did you assume her behavior meant? What is that based on?
• How did you understand the messy kitchen? The erratic stitching in the quilt?
The requests Mrs. Wright made from jail?
3.3. We’ve heard the arguments, and examined the facts. How should we decide?
4. Reflections on Moral Reasoning (10’)
4.1. What lessons do you take out of this first exercise in moral reasoning?
TRIFLES CLASS SESSION SUMMARY
http://harvardbusinessonline.hbsp.harvard.edu/b01/en/common/item_detail.jhtml?id=607
069
2
3