Victoria Kourniotis
Subject
General Social
Science (Gr. 12)
Theme/Unit
Social Change
(theme)
Factors that shape
human behaviour
(unit)
Time
110 Minutes
1 1/2 classes
Course: Challenge and Change in Society; University-College Preparation (HSB4M)
Title: The Dilemma of Moral Reasoning
Ministry Expectations:
Overall Expectations:
-Describe key features of major theories from anthropology, psychology, and sociology
Specific Expectations: Foundations of Social Change
-identify a major question about social change posed by psychology (How does moral
development occur?)
-define and differentiate the theories of change in psychology (Kohlberg)
-evaluate major contribution to understanding social changes made by leading practitioners
in the social sciences (Psychology-Kohlberg)
Purpose of the Lesson
-lesson topic is very important for adolescents’; it is relevant to the stage in life they are at,
during which significant changes in moral development occur
-during adolescence students will be presented with many moral decisions, and by
assessing the situations in class they are able to practice and develop their opinions
(personal identity development)
-the lesson incorporates use of analytical and application skills (applying Kohlberg’s theory
to situations)
-lesson involves media literacy through the movie clips; opens students up to the idea of
critiquing what they watch and deconstructing the messages presented
Lesson Description
Students will be introduced to moral judgment by being shown two clips which we will
discuss as a class. Then the class will take a note on Kohlberg that includes his history,
approach, and theory. After the note students will be asked basic knowledge and
comprehension questions to check for understanding. After this I will refer back to the John
Q clip to explain how an individual from each level of moral development would judge the
situation. Then in groups students will assess a new dilemma from each level of moral
development. This activity will be followed by a group discussion/debriefing and a followup homework activity.
This lesson connects to the culminating activity which will require the students to make a
personal visual collage to represent the different factors that shape their behaviour and the
effect they have had, and discuss any relevant theorists/theories. This will include belief
systems, socialization agents, environment, genetics etc. For example a student might use a
picture of a video camera lens to show that they view the legal system as subjective and
therefore they are post-conventional. This lesson will help students to understand how
morals develop, so that the topic can be represented in their culminating activity, and they
can describe which moral stage they are in and how it affects their judgments and
subsequent behaviour. Furthermore, developing the ability to describe the reactions people
1
Victoria Kourniotis
make at different levels of moral development is good practice for indicating how their
moral level influences their behaviour.
Enduring Understanding
-Moral development occurs in a stage-like process (According to Kohlberg)
-Depending on which level of reasoning a person is at, they will judge situations differently
-It is difficult to make ultimate judgments about ethical dilemmas, so one’s analysis and
reasoning of a situation should be examined for moral development
Materials/Resources
-Textbooks: (used to create note)
◦Adolescence 8th ed.; Lawrence Steinberg, Mc Graw-Hill
◦Psychology: Themes and Variations 6th ed.; Wayne Weiten, Wadsworth
-Internet Sites: (used to create note/homework sheet)
◦http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/kohlberg.htm
◦http://www.sciencedirect.comInternational Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral
Sciences, 2004, Pages 8151-8155, G. Nunner-Winkler
◦http://www.haverford.edu/psych/ddavis/p109g/kohlberg.dilemmas.html
-Note on overhead sheet*
-Cue cards with moral dilemmas*
-Student worksheet handout*
-Student homework handout*
-Overhead projector
-Movie clips
-Laptop with clips saved
-Projector
-Projector screen
Learning Styles
-Linguistic
-Visuo-Spatial
-Interpersonal
Prior Knowledge
-students will have completed the introductory lessons on socialization
and morality in order to understand:
i) how people are shaped by their environment/what influences moral
development
ii) what morality is and what moral development is
iii) Why moral development is specifically important for teens
(development of value autonomy)
Modifications
-students with learning difficulties
will be asked to complete a
different homework assignment.
They will have to write a journal
response for the John Q movie
trailer, indicating how they
personally would deal with the
situation and then state which
Accommodations
-graphic organizers and group work will help lower
level learners feel less intimidated by the task since
they will clearly see what needs to be accomplished
-provide hearing impaired students with transcripts of
the clips or used close captioning if possible
-students with special needs will be given a copy of
the overhead to fill in any holes from their own notes
2
Victoria Kourniotis
level of moral development they
are at and why.
Agenda
(to be written on Blackboard for students)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Critique of Movie Clips
Lesson
Group Activity
Class Discussion
Wrap Up
Essential Questions
1. How do we make moral judgments?
2. Is there always an absolute “right” and
“wrong” for every moral dilemma
3. How do our moral values change over
time?
1. Hook/Grabber
-at the beginning of class I will show two video clips
-first show students a clip from the show Dexter (Appendix 1 for scene
description)
-after each movie clip summarize what was shown to ensure that students
process the clip for the relevant details (Appendix 1)
-take student opinions (3 from the front) with the following guiding question
in mind:
 Is this morally right or wrong? Why?
consider why the action should or should not be supported
-before taking hands tell students that they are not to be making judgments
or debating other people’s opinions
-give students 15 seconds to think about their opinion before you take hands
-as students share their responses jot down their justifications in a
brainstorm web with the title of the movie in the middle (illegal to kill etc.)
-next show the trailer clip from the movie John Q (Appendix 1 for scene
description) and ask student opinions (3 from the back) with the same
guiding question in mind
-give students 15 seconds to think about their opinion before taking hands
-if students do not volunteer to speak from a certain part of the room, then
select any students who do have their hand up, if no students volunteer their
opinion begin with sharing my own thoughts to get the ball rolling
-link the hook to the topic by discussing how both scenes are difficult to
assess, which is evident due to the difference of opinions (no clear cut
answer). In both cases though everyone knows how they feel about a
situation and can make a moral judgment because various factors (religion,
law, parents) influence our feelings, as discussed in last class
-draw attention to the essential questions posted on the board (read each
one out loud) and tell students to keep the essential questions in mind
throughout the rest of the class so that by the end of the class they can
hopefully answer them
Time
15 mins
2. Instructional Input/Modeling
-Introduction: With consideration of the unique factors that influence our
morals, a stage theory of moral development was developed by Lawrence
Kohlberg which describes the process of moral development and indicates
how a person makes ethical judgments. Each stage focuses on different
influences for justifying why something is right or wrong
-ask students to take out their notebooks and copy down the note (Appendix
20 mins
3
Victoria Kourniotis
2) on the over head (wait 15 seconds for everyone to be ready)
-tell the students that they don’t have to copy the whole note just the levels
and you will tell them when that is, but to just listen to the first part
-keep the overhead covered up and reveal one section at a time, so that
students aren’t overwhelmed with taking the note
-wait until 80% of the students have finished writing before moving on to the
next section
-students only have to copy the part of the note on Kohlberg’s Theory (the
levels)
-for the sections on History and Approach students should just be listening
-the note will include the following sections:
 Brief history of Kohlberg
 Explain his theory
what his theory is
his process of assessing moral development
what are the stages of moral development, and examples
-my copy of the note (Appendix 3) contains elaboration points I will discuss
-Allow for student questions to clarify
-check for student understanding with the following questions once 80% are
done note taking(Bloom’s Taxonomy):
-take answers from students moving left to right in the classroom
 What are Kohlberg’s stages of development? (Knowledge)
Pre-conventional, Conventional, Post-conventional
 What occurs at the pre-conventional stage (and others)? (Knowledge)
Pre-conventional: Focus on consequences/self-interest,
Conventional: how others view you/intentions, ranking of human
rights, Post-Conventional: a person’s duty
 Explain which two levels are most similar (Understanding)
Pre-conventional and Conventional because they both consider the
law to be absolute OR Conventional and Post-conventional because
they both have more flexibility in what is right and wrong, (look at
the greater picture to determine morality, not just the law)
 Provide an example of an action a Pre-conventionalist would say is
wrong (Understanding)
stealing, murder, lying, cheating, speeding, (because they are against
the law)
 Provide an example of something a Post-conventionalist would say is
right (Understanding)
using vandalism as a method of lobbying for equal human rights
(human rights trumps property value), stealing from the rich to give
to the poor (Robin hood)-value for survival over property
-tell students you are going to take a poll of which level they think they fall
into but they don’t have to answer and you will not be asking for a
justification, purely just a poll; ask who feels they are a Preconventionalist….etc
-tell students that we are going to return to the John Q example from the
introduction to better understand what someone in each level might say
about his actions. The emphasis will be on why they justify his actions as
right or wrong, not what moral decision they make. I will provide examples
10 mins
4
Victoria Kourniotis
of how each level could argue for or against his actions.
-provide an example on how to assess the movie clip (John Q) according to
Kohlberg’s stages of development
 At the Pre-conventional level someone could say that what John is
doing is wrong, because it is against the law to hold people captive or
he could go to jail for holding hostages (emphasis here on
consequences). They might say that he should hold them hostage
because it is in his own interest to have his child medically treated OR
that he shouldn’t hold the people hostage because he wouldn’t want
to be away from his child for so long if he was put in jail (emphasis on
self-interest)
 At the Conventional level someone would respond that it was right to
hold them hostage because he had good intentions to help save his
son and he didn’t actually intend to hurt any hostages OR someone
could justify he was wrong because having a gun indicated his
intentions to hurt other people and hurting those people is worse
than letting his son be unhealthy because what he is doing breaks the
law and could cause chaos if everyone thought they could get away
with the same
 At the Post-conventional level someone might explain that John is
right to act as he does because it is a father’s duty to care for and
protect his child OR he is wrong because holding hostages puts more
lives in danger than if only his child is sick (ranking of needs:
importance of freedom/life is against him)
3. Guided Practice (Application)
-I will break students into groups of about 4-5 by numbering students off 1
through 7. All the 1’s will sit together, all the 2’s will sit together etc…
-within each group each student will have a certain job; task monitor (keep
group on task/be aware of time), speaker (to share their answers with the
class), reader (read the dilemma and questions aloud to group) and
researcher (refer back to note to explain answers or ask teacher any
clarifying questions). Students will be assigned to duties according to their
birthdays; the youngest can pick first, the second youngest can pick second
etc…
-each group will be given the same moral dilemma (Appendix 4), instructions
(Appendix 4) and each student will be given a work sheet (Appendix 5)
-after each group is organized I will go over the instructions and ask for any
questions
Instructions: Read the moral dilemma, students will describe how a person
from each of Kohlberg’s levels would judge the situation and respond to the
questions provided. To do this they will answer the questions found in the
organizer, then they will write these answers down on their organizers
-emphasize that there is no right or wrong answer, what matters is that the
reasoning used is correct. They could respond either way as long as the
justification is correct by incorporating the main principles of that level
-tell students that a good way to approach this assignment would be to first
identify which factors define the level they are working on and then use
those factors to make a right or wrong/ should or should not decision and
then explain why with reference to those factors first identified.
-again refer back to the John Q example; if we did this for the John W example
20 mins
5
Victoria Kourniotis
then someone who is conventional focuses on _____ they might conclude that
___ because _____
-make sure students understand the difference between the questions of
what someone “should” do and what is “right” (morally) to do (from activity)
should would be the answer in absence of laws, and “right” to
do incorporates the influence of laws
depending on the stage they could have different answers
-during this time I will visit each group to make sure they are on track and
answer any questions they have
-after 20 minutes students will be asked to wrap up what they are doing
-the following day they will be given 15 minutes to finish anything they
haven’t answered and refresh their answers
-after this we will have an informal class discussion (no presenting), where
each group (starting with the 1’s) will be asked to answer one question from
one perspective (done by the speaker). This will be about 20 minutes
-they will also hand in their homework assignments
4. Closure
-return to the essential questions posted on the board and ask students if
they have a better idea of how Kohlberg would answer these questions (ask
students to raise hand if they can answer the questions-just a poll do not
actually have to provide the answer)
-discuss the importance of understanding where the differences in our moral
judgments come from (what factors people deem important in their decision
making, what emphasis they focus on; law, human rights etc), and why it is
crucial to understand that differences do exist, and not everyone will view a
situation in the same way
-prepare students by indicating that next day we will wrap up the group
work and move on to assessing the validity of Kohlberg’s theory and discuss
competing ideas
-explain homework assignment/hand out assignment sheet
10 mins
5. Independent Practice/Homework(Evaluation)
20 mins
-students will be given a homework sheet (Appendix 6) with a new moral
at home
dilemma and a set of questions
-they explain the scenario to a friend or family member and then they will
interview him/her based on the set of questions, and record their answers
-after the interview, based on the answers, they student will have to
determine which level of moral reasoning the individual is at and explain
why
Assessment Strategies-student understanding will be assessed by the following:
-answering knowledge and understanding questions after the note (do they have the right
answers)
-based on the justification they use to support their answers, and proper identification of
behaviours seen at each level (do their answers related to the key details for each level of
development).This will be determined by their work sheets, group observation and
participation in the class discussion
-based on the evaluation and explanation they use to complete their homework assignment;
did they characterize their interviewee into the correct category and could they explain
their decision
6
Victoria Kourniotis
Assessment/Evaluation (check all that apply)
X
Observations
quiz/test
Notebook
checklists/anecdotal
X
Participation
X
work sheets
X
interviews/conferences
self/peer assessment
homework check
Ideas for Plan B/Lesson B/Extensions
-follow up from first class by letting students finish their dilemma analysis (group work)
and then conducting a class discussion, where each group gets to share their responses
from one question
-introduce Gilligan’s model of moral reasoning
-compare and contrast the idea of sex differences in moral reasoning (justice vs. care
orientation) with Kohlberg’s theory
Reflection
Having my classmates do my hook activity was good practice because it made me realize
what additional elements should be included. Firstly, for next time I will be sure to inform
students that when they share their opinion they are not to make judgments of another
person’s ideas, because I don’t want anyone to be afraid to share their thoughts. I realized
this during the practice, when the discussion quickly turned into a debate of other people’s
opinions. Additionally, I realized that I should also summarize the important details of each
clip to direct the students’ attention to the topic of morality, so they come to realize what
the discussion will be on and class will be on.
7
Victoria Kourniotis
8
Movie Clip Synopses
John Q Trailer
John Quincy Archibald’s son collapses at his baseball game due to heart failure. After
rushing his son to the emergency room doctors, inform John that his son is going to need a
heart transplant. After meeting with numerous surgeons and doctors he is told that his only
option is to pay for the heart transplant because his health plan does not cover procedures of
such magnitude. After pleading with doctors, selling off as many personal belongings as
possible, and attempting to upgrade his coverage, the outcome is still that the Archibald’s
cannot afford such a procedure. With nowhere else to turn, John decides to take matters into
his own hands by holding an emergency room of doctors, nurses, and patients hostage. He
demands for his son to be put on a donor list and have the transplant surgery performed. He
threatens to kill hostages if his demands are not met within a certain time since his son’s life is
quickly fading.
Dexter, Season 1, Episode 1 (Scene 4, 29 minute mark)
The scene begins with Dexter, a forensic blood spatter analyst, realizing that the man
he has been pursuing is in fact the killer. He then states that soon he will be disposed of as the
killer falls under Dexter’s “code”. Then there is a flashback to Dexter’s adolescence where his
father explains “the code”. The reason this code has come about, is due to Dexter’s urge to kill.
The killings simply started with animals but Harry (his father) soon realizes that Dexter’s
urges can be put to “good” use as it is clear they will not subside. Harry explains that there are
people in this world that get away with heinous crimes and the police department just cannot
keep up and solve all these murders, and some criminals were even wrongfully released. Harry
explains this problem to Dexter as an avenue for satisfying his sociopathic urges. Harry
explains to young Dexter, that only those who have been wrongfully released or never caught
should be killed.
Victoria Kourniotis
9
Lawrence Kohlberg and
Moral Development
Biography
-Born October 25th 1927 in New York City
- studied philosophers such as: Plato, Dewey, Locke, Mill and Jefferson
-did his doctoral dissertation at the University of Chicago, on the development of moral
judgment (completed 1958)
Kohlberg’s Approach
 Expanded upon Piaget’s Cognitive Developmental Perspective;
the way people think out moral issues (reasoning)depends on their level of cognitive
development
 Piaget’s theory was the basis for Kohlberg’s research
 Research was obtained by giving participants tricky moral dilemmas and having them
explain why a character should act a certain way
Kohlberg’s Theory
 Moral development occurs through a hierarchy of stages, containing 3 levels
 Progression occurs from an
o Emphasis on consequences and objectivity of rulesImportance of intention
and subjectivity of rules
Levels of Moral Development:
1. Pre-Conventional Moral Reasoning
-dominant during most of childhood (9 and under)
-reasoning is based on rewards and punishments associated with different actions
-acts are wrong because they are punished or right because they lead to positive outcomes
-the idea of “right” is defined as obeying rules and authority and avoiding punishment
-children do not identify with the values they follow because morals are something adults
merely tell them to obey
2. Conventional Moral Reasoning
Victoria Kourniotis
-generally develops during late childhood to early adolescence (teen years)
majority of people think in conventional terms
-reasoning is based on rules and conventions of society people are supposed to follow
take into consideration how you will be judged by others for your decisions
-the correctness of social rules is not questioned
-motivation to act “right” is based on the desire to be considered good by others
-important to assess the intentions and motives an individual acts upon
-rules are necessary for maintaining social order, so the rules defined by society are
accepted as their own
3. Post-Conventional Reasoning
-rare type of reasoning, reached by few adults
-society’s rules and conventions are seen as relative and subjective as opposed to
authoritative
-this can lead to the questioning of conventions when more significant moral principles
(justice, fairness etc.) arise
-“right” is defined in terms of upholding legal contracts or universal ethical principles
(equality/respect)
-people ask what makes for a good society
10
Victoria Kourniotis
11
Lawrence Kohlberg and
Moral Development
Biography
-Born October 25th 1927 in New York City
- studied philosophers such as: Plato, Dewey, Locke, Mill and Jefferson
-did his doctoral dissertation at the University of Chicago, on the development of moral
judgment (completed 1958)
Kohlberg’s Approach
 Expanded upon Piaget’s Cognitive Developmental Perspective;
the way people think out moral issues (reasoning)depends on their level of cognitive
development
-changes in thought organization allow for the shift in the type of reasoning people use
when making moral decisions
-this is due to changes that occur to the organization of thoughts, not the content
 Piaget’s theory was the basis for Kohlberg’s research
 Research was obtained by giving participants tricky moral dilemmas and having them
explain why a character should act a certain way
-he studied the progression that occurred in moral reasoning
Kohlberg’s Theory
 Moral development occurs through a hierarchy of stages, containing 3 levels
each stage represents a different approach to thinking about right and wrong
 Progression occurs from a
o Emphasis on consequences and objectivity of rulesImportance of intention
and subjectivity of rules
-belief that rules are absolute
Levels of Moral Development:
Victoria Kourniotis
12
3. Pre-Conventional Moral Reasoning
-dominant during most of childhood (9 and under)
-reasoning is based on rewards and punishments associated with different actions (what
would happen to someone as a result of their decisions/actions)
-acts are wrong because they are punished or right because they lead to positive outcomes
-the idea of “right” is defined as obeying rules and authority and avoiding punishment
-children do not identify with the values they follow because morals are something adults
merely tell them to obey
-rules exist external to the self because children do not speak as members of society; the
values of the family or the community are something they must unquestioningly obey
-Heinz dilemma: wrong to steal the drug because "It's against the law," or "It's bad to
steal," responds in terms of consequences involved; stealing is bad "because you'll get
punished"
4. Conventional Moral Reasoning
-generally develops during late childhood to early adolescence (teen years)
majority of people think in conventional terms
-reasoning is based on rules and conventions of society people are supposed to follow
take into consideration how you will be judged by others for your decisions
-the correctness of social rules is not questioned
-moral thinking is inflexible; rules viewed as absolute guidelines that should be enforced
rigidly
-morality judged from a member of society perspective (socially shared internalized
norms)
-motivation to act “right” is based on the desire to be considered good by others
-desire the approval from others
-important to assess the intentions and motives an individual acts upon
-rules are necessary for maintaining social order, so the rules defined by society are
accepted as their own (internalization)
-Heinz dilemma: intentions were good (saving the life of someone he loves), it was the
druggist's fault, he was unfair, trying to overcharge and letting someone die, Heinz loved
his wife and wanted to save her
3. Post-Conventional Reasoning
-rare type of reasoning, reached by few adults
Victoria Kourniotis
13
-society’s rules and conventions are seen as relative and subjective as opposed to
authoritative
-acceptance of rules is less rigid and more flexible, rules can be challenged
-the moral obligation to adhere to society’s rules exists only as long as the rules support
moral ends
-this can lead to the questioning of conventions when more significant moral principles
(justice, fairness etc.) arise
- some people might not comply with some of society’s rules if they conflict with personal
ethics
-“right” is defined in terms of upholding legal contracts or universal ethical principles
(equality/respect)
-despite difference of values among different groups, agreement that basic rights should
be protected
-people ask what makes for a good society
-consider the rights and values a society ought to uphold
-Heinz dilemma: not in favour of breaking laws because they are social contracts agreed to
be upheld, BUT , the wife’s right to live is a moral right that must be protected.
It is the husband's duty to save his wife. The fact that her life is in danger transcends
every other standard you might use to judge his action. Life is more important than
property.
Victoria Kourniotis
14
Instructions:
Read the moral dilemma aloud with your group. Using the chart provided answer each
question and describe how a person from each of Kohlberg’s levels would answer the question
and judge the situation. Be sure to refer to the characteristics of each level to explain why they
would make a certain judgment or response.
Moral 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 it." So, having tried every legal means, Heinz gets desperate and considers
breaking into the man's store to steal the drug for his wife.
Victoria Kourniotis
15
Homework Assignment
Instructions:
Choose a friend or family member to interview. Read him/her the moral dilemma described
below. Afterwards ask him/her the five questions listed below, and record his/her answers in
the space provided. After the interview, analyze the responses and decide which level of moral
development the person would be at. Explain and justify your decision with reference to the
description of each level discussed in class.
Moral Dilemma:
Judy was a twelve-year-old girl. Her mother promised her that she could go to a special rock
concert coming to their town if she saved up from baby-sitting and lunch money to buy a ticket
to the concert. She managed to save up the fifteen dollars the ticket cost plus another five
dollars. But then her mother changed her mind and told Judy that she had to spend the money
on new clothes for school. Judy was disappointed and decided to go to the concert anyway. She
bought a ticket and told her mother that she had only been able to save five dollars. That
Saturday she went to the performance and told her mother that she was spending the day with
a friend. A week passed without her mother finding out. Judy then told her older sister, Louise,
that she had gone to the performance and had lied to her mother about it. Louise wonders
whether to tell their mother what Judy did.
Interview Questions:
1. Was it wrong for Judy to lie to her mother? Why?
2. Should Louise tell their mother that Judy lied about the money or should she keep quiet?
Why?
3. In wondering whether to tell, Louise thinks of the fact that Judy is her sister. Should that
make a difference in Louise's decision? Why or why not?
4. Does telling have anything to do with being a good daughter? Why or why not?
5. The mother promised Judy she could go to the concert if she earned the money. Is the fact
that the mother promised the most important thing in the situation? Why or why not?
Victoria Kourniotis
16
Analysis:
1. Which level of Kohlberg’s moral development would your friend/family member be at? If
they can be categorized by two levels, write both down
2. Explain why you chose the level of moral development that you did. Refer to your
friend/family member’s responses and the characteristics associated with each level to justify
your decision.
Victoria Kourniotis
Questions
1.
Should Heinz steal
the drug?
 Why or why not?
2.
Is it actually morally
right or wrong for him
to steal the drug?
Why is it right or
wrong?
3.
Is the druggist acting
immorally by charging
so much for the drug?
Why or why not?
Pre-Conventional Reasoning
(level 1)
Conventional Reasoning
(level 2)
17
Post-Conventional Reasoning
(level 3)
Victoria Kourniotis
18