Lecture Objectives: After learning this material you will be able to:
1. Present the basic arguments concerning whether or not religion is
necessary to morality.
2. Understand the divine command theory and the natural law theory of
ethics.
3. Discuss the differences between natural law, divine command, and
American civil religion.
4. Understand the issues concerned with conscience and moral
development.
5. Compare and contrast the affective and cognitive sides of our conscience.
6. Reflect on what it means to be a morally mature person.
Welcome back! It is difficult to believe, but in this lecture we will cross over into
the second half of this course already. In the last lecture we presented the basic
insight of ethical subjectivism: “What may be right for you may be wrong for me
depending on our respective feelings.” We also studied cultural relativism, which
is an ethical theory that states that our ethical values stem from our culture and
that morality is simply socially approved customs. Finally, we learned about the
meaning of moral community. In this lecture we will explore the world of religion
and morality, beginning with the divine command theory and then moving to the
natural law theory, followed by a look at American civil religion. We will also
explore ideas concerning conscience and moral development, including studying
the affective and cognitive sides of our conscience. We will conclude by asking
ourselves what it means to be a morally mature person.
Is Morality Grounded in Religion?
No one doubts that religion plays a very large role in how many, if not most,
people learn about and are trained in the basic moral values by which they try to
live. The philosophical question is to wonder if this is necessary or not. It seems
necessary, but a critical thinker needs to ask the important questions about what
comes first.
Is something good because God says it is good or does God say it is good
because it is good? People who believe in God often say that God is good. What
do they mean? Do they mean that God is simply God (therefore good), or that
God adheres to a universal standard of good that we inherently recognize? “In
the Jewish religion, Roman Catholicism, and mainstream Protestant religions,
basic moral principles are held to be universal and discoverable through other
means such as the use of reason or intuition. In contrast, some Muslims, like
some fundamentalist Christians, maintain that ethics is inseparable from religion
and is built entirely upon it. An action is right simply because God commands it.
Religion informs not only the Muslim’s personal life but also the basis of public
policy. The sovereignty of Allah is the starting point of Islamic political philosophy
and law. In many Muslim countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Morocco, the law
of the sacred texts - the Qur’an - is the law of the land and applies to everyone
1
living in that country. Humans are not expected to discern right from wrong but to
submit unquestioningly to God’s will” (Judith A. Boss, Ethics For Life: A Text With
Readings, Fourth Edition, [New York, New York: McGraw Hill, 2008] p. 148.
Hereafter referred to as Boss.) The view that a standard such as the “good” is
universal and outside of any religion (even if it is taught and supported by that
religion) is a very important one.
It is important especially in a country as religious as the United States, and in a
world where so many people have faith, but faith in different traditions.
“According to a 2006 Pew Research Center poll, 32 percent of Americans believe
that religion and the Bible should be more important than the will of the people in
government and political decisions, especially decisions concerning moral issues
such as abortion, war, homosexuality, stem cell research, and the death penalty.
In addition, while 49 percent believe that ‘conservative Christians have gone too
far in trying to impose their religious values on the country,’ even more
Americans - 69 percent - believe that ‘liberals have gone too far in trying to keep
religion out of the schools and the government’” (Boss, p. 149.) These are
amazing statistics, and they demonstrate why our country is so torn on so many
issues. Is there a way for us to find consensus? The answer depends partially on
how we think about religion in terms of ethics.
There are two basic theories about how all of this works, and these two theories
are diametrically opposed. One can lead to consensus because it claims to be
universal, and the other cannot lead to consensus because it is a form of
relativism. “Divine command theory claims that morality is dependent on or
relative to God’s commands and, therefore, can change from time to time and
person to person. Natural law theory, on the other hand, maintains that morality
is based on universal, unchanging principles and that God commands or
approves something because it is right prior to the command” (Boss, p. 149.)
Many people adhere to the divine command theory without thinking about it all
the way through because they equate morality with God’s ethics. Because the
commandments found in the world’s scriptures are often very ethical, such as
“don’t steal,” this is not a problem. The problem comes when people agree that
God can command you to obey a “higher calling” that circumvents basic morality.
In other words, can God command you to do something bad, in which case
(because God commanded it) it becomes good?
The Divine Command Theory
The classic story of divine command that most of us are familiar with is the story
of God asking Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac. We all know that in the end
God substitutes a ram for Isaac and Abraham is praised for his willingness to
obey God no matter what. But the ethical (prescriptive) question still remains:
what should Abraham have done? “The divine command is a type of ethical
relativism. According to this theory, morality is dependent on or relative to God.
2
Morality does not exist independently of God’s will. Just as morality for the
cultural relativist is relative to cultural norms and commands, for the divine
command theorist, morality is relative to what God commands or wills. There are
no independent, universal moral standards by which to judge God’s commands.
No other justification is necessary for an action to be right other than that God
commanded it” (Boss, p. 150.) This seems to have been Abraham’s belief.
Abraham knew this was a problem and he obviously did not want to do it, but he
was willing to go against his own best judgment because of his faith that God’s
command is more important than his own human understanding of good and evil.
From a certain academic point, this could simply be an interesting exercise.
Unfortunately it is also a real world exercise. That is, we live in a world where it
seems an increasing number of people are willing to go against basic moral
norms - such as not killing innocent people - because they believe that God has
told them to. We are all aware of the religious justification used by Islamic
fanatics, but we also have cases of Christian fanatics doing the same thing.
You may remember the American Christian woman Andrea Yates who drowned
her five children because she believed God wanted her to do so. It is too easy to
just say that she was mentally ill, while still claiming other such people, such as
the biblical Abraham, are great examples of holiness. If someone truly believes
they are acting on God’s behalf, then what can we do to persuade them that they
need to think again about basic morality? It is almost impossible to talk with a
fanatic (which is why they are so frightening), but we can at least have a good
understanding of what it means to critique the divine command theory so that
people open to reason might begin to see another way.
Critique of Divine Command Theory
The most obvious place to start is to wonder how we can ever be sure that what
a person is responding to really is a divine command. There is no doubt that they
believe it, but that is not the same as a verifiable truth. “The primary concern with
divine command theory is its apparent arbitrariness since there are no objective
criteria for us to use to determine whether a particular claim or action was
actually based on God’s command” (Boss, p. 155.) This becomes obvious in at
least two ways:
1. “ Morality is independent of God’s commands. If morality is dependent on or
relative to God’s will, then morality is arbitrary. Anything - rape, murder,
genocide, killing one’s own children - is permissible as long as God wills or
commands it” (Boss, p. 155.) There is no universal standard we can appeal to
here. This is like when a little child asks his or her parent why they must do
something and the parent says: “because I told you so!” There is no appeal to
such a command!
3
2. “There are no criteria for determining whether God actually issued a particular
command. Because divine commands are issued to particular individuals or
groups rather than being grounded in universal principles, we are left with no
rational or objective means of determining if a person or group actually was
commanded by God or if they were mistaken or delusional” (Boss, p. 156.) How
can we tell the difference between a mentally ill person and a great saint when
they are both claiming to hear the voice of God? Well the obvious way is to see
what the voice is leading them to. Is it leading to more compassion and service,
or more hatred and suffering? Here is the problem again. If the divine is asking
them to be more moral than others, then that is not a big problem. The problem
arises when the divine asks them to be less moral or immoral.
We have seen similar problems in our study of relativism. “Relativistic theories do
not allow for rational discussion of what is the right thing to do, thus contributing
to a rigid ‘either you’re with us or against us’ mentality. The only way left to
resolve differences regarding what God commands is through apathy or
violence” (Boss, p. 157.) Have you ever tried to reason with someone who “just
knows” that they are right? It is very frustrating. Usually we just give up and think
of them as stubborn. But what if they are proposing to do something dangerous
and illegal? What can we do then? Often only physical restraint will work and
then we also get caught up in the cycle of violence. This is the horror of the war
on terrorism. To fight terrorism you often have to adopt as means things you
want to avoid in the first place!
The problem is also one of having to argue from ignorance, which is a fallacy. In
other words, if you can’t prove someone is wrong so that then makes him or her
even more sure that they are right. Atheists will sometimes say that the fact that
you can’t prove there is a God means that there is no God. Religious people will
argue just the opposite way. But ignorance does not prove anything except that
we don’t know. “The most we can conclude is that we do not know if divine
command theory is a correct interpretation of morality. This being said, the best
approach when confronted with someone or a group who claims to be acting on
God’s command is probably skepticism, especially if the purported command
conflicts with fundamental, universal moral principles” (Boss, p. 158.) So if
someone tells you they believe that God has ordered them to help the poor it is
probably O.K. to not worry about it. You may not believe them, but at least they
are not hurting anyone. But we really have to think twice when people want to go
against basic morality. Is there a way to do this and still be religious? Yes. Is
there a way to do this and be atheist or agnostic? Yes. The method most often
used is to make an appeal to natural law ethics.
Natural Law Ethics
You can counteract divine command ethics with natural law ethics because you
are essentially counteracting relativism with an appeal to what is universal.
“Natural law ethicists disagree with the divine command theories. Instead of an
4
action being right because God commands it, natural law theorists maintain that
God commands an action because it is moral beforehand and independently of
God’s commanding it at that moment. Variations of natural law theory are found
in moral philosophies throughout the world. Although natural law theory is
generally associated with religion, unlike divine command theory, it does not
depend on the existence of a personal god. For example, both Aristotle and
Roman philosopher Cicero (106-43 B.C.E.) believed that natural or moral law
exists as part of the natural order” (Boss, p. 159.) Many theologians believe that
it is a part of the natural order because this was part of God’s plan.
This allows people to be religious and find morality in their religious teachings.
But it is also true that an atheist can believe in natural law ethics. He or she might
not know where the ethics come from, but then we don’t know where anything
comes from. But for practical purposes all they have to do is appeal to the fact
that if anyone wants to reason about these things they will come to some basic
and similar ethical ground rules. How true this is will be explored, but for now the
point is that you can have a divine or not have a divine and still have natural law
ethics.
What is the basic understanding of natural law ethics? “According to natural law
theory, morality is universal and grounded in rational nature rather than being
particular and relative to God’s commands. Natural law does not mean laws of
physics, but laws of rational human nature, which, unlike the fixed laws of
physical nature, are free and autonomous. Reason constitutes the divine spark
within humans; it is our essence. Natural or moral law is unchanging and eternal.
Natural law is universally knowable to humans through reason. It is also
universally binding on all humans” (Boss, p. 160.) While it is true that different
people at different times will find different ways of applying natural law ethics to
their lives and societies, they will nevertheless do so according to some basic
principles that will be shared.
It is because they are so basic that they can be shared. But it is also because
they are so basic that some wonder if it is applicable to call them an ethics in the
first place. “The guidelines contained in natural law are very general, unlike
normative moral rules that contain specific content and guidelines for actions
such as ‘do not steal.’ According to Thomas Aquinas, the basic principle of
natural law is ‘do good and avoid evil.’ The Golden Rule of Judeo-Christian
religion is another example of one of the principles of natural law. Because the
moral guidelines contained in natural law are very general, we need to use our
reason in deriving normative rules from natural law and in applying natural law to
real-life situations” (Boss, p. 161.) Perhaps it is only after they are applied that we
can formally call them an ethics. “To do good and avoid evil” sounds fine but the
“devil is in the details” as the saying goes. What is good and evil? Who is
defining these terms? Isn’t that the problem in the first place?
5
Natural law ethicists believe that even though natural law is very general
nevertheless, we all have a basic intuitive sense of what “do good and avoid evil”
means. That immediate intuitive understanding that says: “yes, I want to do good
and avoid evil” in my life is natural law acting in us. It makes sense because it
appeals to our human reason, and ethics makes rational sense. “Like Aristotle,
Aquinas believed that we function best as humans when we are perfecting our
human capacities, reason being the highest and most important of these
capacities. Because moral law is embedded in human reason, our actions do not
depend on our perception of God’s will or commands at any particular moment”
(Boss, p. 162.)
We will be looking at this more a little later when we study conscience and moral
development, but the idea is that we can learn a language when we are babies,
whether English, Chinese, or any other language, because we are “hardwired,”
so to speak, to learn language. The specific language is simply the software
program that is used by our brain (computer). In a similar way, natural law states
that we are hardwired to look for the good and to do what is right. It may not be
perfect, but it is there as part of our basic working gear in human beings.
Just as an acorn has the “goal” of an oak tree built into it, so do our basic moral
intuitions have a goal built into them. At least that is what natural law ethics
would have us consider. “Natural law theory is also teleological. This means it is
grounded in a specific view of the purpose or goal of the natural order. According
to Aquinas, God as the most perfect and rational being furnishes the end toward
which the universe is directed. The moral or natural law is our human way of
participating in and actively working toward that vision” (Boss, p. 164.)
In other words, the reason we can learn anything or make sense of our world at
all is because we live in a universe that is lawful. We can study these laws and
patterns and understand the world of nature. So it goes for ethics. We live in a
world that makes sense, so goodness should make sense and follow some basic
laws as well. But just as we don’t understand all of nature yet, so we don’t fully
understand the nature of goodness. But it is working itself out over time.
Remember: the answer to the divine command theory of ethics is the same as
with relativism in general. We need to have a universal standard of justice that
everyone, even God, must adhere to. “To summarize, natural law ethicists, such
as Aquinas, answer no to the question, Is morality relative to religion? Natural
law is universal and applies to all rational beings: God and humans, religious
people and atheists alike are all bound by the same moral principles and
sentiments. We act morally for the same reasons that God does” (Boss, p. 165.)
Just as we naturally try to understand our world, so we naturally look for the
good. This sounds good, but is it true?
Critique of Natural Law Theory
6
Natural law theory has its own problems just as relativism does. If it did not, I
suppose that after several thousand years we would have figured things out!
There are at least four recognized problems. 1. “Not all people agree on what is
morally required. Because the basic principles of natural law are so general, it is
open to divergent interpretations. This problem is further compounded by the fact
that humans are not perfectly rational. Because we have imperfect reason and
are subject to error, different people may interpret natural law and its application
differently. Consequently, reason alone is insufficient to determine what is moral”
(Boss, p. 167.) One of the reasons why you are required to take critical thinking
in college (and one reason why I spent so much time going over the various
fallacies that interfere with ethical thinking) is that our thinking is faulty. I am sure
we all have many personal examples of where we really thought we made the
right decision only to discover later that it was not such a great idea after all!
We like to think that as humans we are free and unique beings. But modern
studies and many philosophers have questioned these assumptions. 2. “Natural
law theory is based on a dualistic worldview. Natural law assumes that humans
are a special creation who have incorporeal souls and, hence, are free and
autonomous. As such, humans are qualitatively different from other purely
physical animals. However, not only is human reason imperfect, reason is found
throughout the animal kingdom to various degrees. In addition, reason can also
be programmed into artificial intelligence” (Boss, p. 167.) Can computers be
moral? Is ethics simply a matter of logic? Is there a place for the heart, the
emotions, in all of this? This will be explored later.
Does the end justify the means? 3. “Because natural law theory is teleological,
the end or fundamental good toward which it is aimed can sometimes become
more important than respect for individual rights and dignity” (Boss, p. 167.) If the
“purpose,” the end, of sexual relations is reproduction, does that mean that
homosexuality and marriage between older people who are past childbearing
age is condemned in natural law ethics? If the end of fighting terrorism is peace
then can we use any means to get there? These are some of the problems we
face when the focus is on the goal, rather than on the present experience and
action of the ethical players we might be thinking about.
If we are all seeking the good then why is there so much disagreement about
what that good is? 4. “There is disagreement among natural law theorists on the
list of fundamental goods. It is simply assumed that we intuitively know what the
fundamental goods are. However, not everyone agrees about what these
fundamental goods or goals are” (Boss, p. 167.) This becomes even more of a
problem in an increasingly pluralistic world, especially in countries like the United
States where so many people come together from different religions or with no
religion at all. Is there any way for people to agree on what is good? We will have
to keep these issues and questions with us as we explore the nature of ethics
further. Before we move on to study conscience and moral development we need
to take a look at one other area that touches on religion and ethics, and that is
7
the nature of what some are calling “civil religion,” especially here in the United
States.
Civil Religion, Society, and National Morality
One of the issues we looked at when studying cultural relativism was the
influence of different religions on a people’s understanding of what is good and
how to lead a righteous life. Further studies have shown us that the nature of
religion undergoes some profound shifts when it comes into contact with political
philosophies and nationalism. “French sociologist and philosopher Emile
Durkheim (1858-1917) argued, in The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life,
that God stands in the same relationship to worshippers as society does to its
individual members. God is the symbol of society, and each society creates God
in its own image. God thus becomes a symbol of cultural unity. Religion is the
worship of society, thereby acting as a mechanism for justifying the moral norms
of a particular culture” (Boss, p. 175.) Think about how often countries think that
they have God on their side! When does our love for country merge with our
religious sensibilities? Is being patriotic in conflict with our need to put God first if
we are religious? These are not easy questions. The United States Supreme
Court has to continually wrestle with church and state issues because we are just
not sure of how to proceed.
Is the Fourth of July a religious holiday? Not exactly, and yet it can feel like a
sacred day to many Americans. So what do we mean by sacred? What about
Thanksgiving? Don’t churches have special services for Thanksgiving? Why? Is
it mentioned in the Bible? What is going on here? “By sacralizing cultural norms
and values, religion gives these cultural norms a transcendent authority that they
would otherwise lack. Unlike Durkheim, who admitted how religion united people
around a common set of values, Karl Marx denounced religion as a destructive
force. He argued that religious institutions, rather than uniting people in a
common interest, exist primarily for the purpose of maintaining the status quo
and legitimizing the interests of the ruling class by deifying their norms.
According to Marx, religion, rather than motivating us to work toward a more just
society, serves as the ‘opium of the people’ by lulling us into a sense of false
security. Religion also prevents those who are oppressed from overthrowing their
oppressors by extolling meekness and submissiveness” (Boss, p. 176.) Religious
people want to think religious values and practices are good for a country, but
Karl Marx is one among many writers who want to caution us about the problems
of mixing church and state. Many of the founders of the United States were
equally worried. Patriotism and religion are powerful sources of motivation for
both good and bad things. History is clear about that!
Scholars have been wrestling with the idea of religion in the United States for a
long time. But in the latter half of the 20th century a new term was coined to help
us think about this. “United States sociologist Robert Bellah (b. 1927), in his
essay ‘Civil Religion in America,’ maintains that Christianity and Judaism are no
8
longer the dominant religions in the United States; a new form of religion has
emerged. He calls this new religion American civil religion. Bellah suggests that
the primary role of civil religion is the creation of a sense of cultural or national
identity and purpose. He defines civil religion as an institutionalized set of beliefs,
symbols, and rituals that provide a religious dimension to a nation’s collective life.
These principles come from God and represent a ‘higher standard’ by which the
experiences of a nation are interpreted and judged. Civil religion played an
important role in Egyptian civilization as well as in the Roman Empire with its
pantheon of gods and goddesses. Today, the belief that the United States was
established as a special nation under God exerts a powerful influence on
Americans’ beliefs regarding their role in world affairs” (Boss, p. 176.) When you
think about how things were justified, such as the stealing of land from Mexico
and the Native Americans, we find not exactly Christian rationalizations (this
would be difficult!), but religious ones. They best fall under the label of civil
religion.
Think about the term “manifest destiny.” This was the term used to justify
expansion across the continental landmass of what is now the continental United
States to the Pacific Ocean. Manifest destiny asserts that it was God’s wish that
America take over this land. Why? Because God wants the world to be
democratic and free! Is not one of the purposes of U.S. foreign policy to spread
democracy around the world? It is not that spreading democracy is wrong. That
is not the issue here. The issue is whether this is our religious duty or not. If it is
not a scriptural duty, then what religion tells people this? Bellah says it is not the
traditional religion of Christianity or Judaism that tells us this. If anything the
scriptures advocate for a monarchy. So what happens when you combine basic
Christian principles with democracy, capitalism, and patriotism? You get
American civil religion.
Bellah claims that this is not a new phenomenon. “Civil religion has been part of
American politics since the nation’s inception. The Declaration of Independence
makes reference to God as the Supreme Judge, and ‘our firm reliance on the
protection of divine Providence.’ Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are
taken to be inalienable rights ‘endowed by their creator’ who takes a special
interest in the American democratic experiment. This new democratic social
order is identified with God’s divine plan for human progression toward moral
perfection” (Boss, p. 177.) Notice how it mentions “Providence,” but not Jesus or
Allah or Krishna. This is not advocating for a specific religion, but for basic
religious values that then are combined with basic American values into a new
unity that can be called civil religion.
Just as the traditional religions have items scholars can study, so does civil
religion. “American civil religion expresses itself in symbols such as the American
flag, the national anthem, war memorials, national holidays (holy days), and
documents that outline our special status and mission as a ‘chosen’ nation, such
as the U.S. Constitution. In addition, references to God appear in the Pledge of
9
Allegiance, on our money, and in oaths for public office” (Boss, p. 177.) Just think
about the emotions that flare up around some of the controversy of burning the
American flag as a protest. People get very worked up about this because it
strikes so deeply into their understanding of what is good and true. Bellah claims
this has the force of religious values for many people, even if they are not used to
thinking about it in that way.
Usually civil religion is not a problem. Most often it can be a source of many good
values. If you have ever been a part of the Girl Scouts or Boy Scouts or
something like that, you see that they teach many wonderful things. But they can
also inhibit critical thinking because they foster so much faith in our country, just
as religious training fosters loyalty to a given tradition. “The intensity of American
civil religion fluctuates over time. It is most powerful when the nation or national
ideals are threatened, such as during the Civil War, the battle against terrorism
and ‘the axis of evil.’ Accordingly, wars or ‘operations’ to spread God’s ‘plan for
humanity’ are often couched in terms of a holy war - of good against evil.
America’s prosperity and status as a major world power are regarded as
evidence of God’s favor” (Boss, p. 177.) When our country suffers problems such
as national disasters, people often look to the moral life of our nation as an
explanation. Some ministers have been known to go on national T.V. and explain
certain disasters as a response to specific sins.
Americans really struggle with this. Our founding documents give power to the
people, and yet so many people have religious beliefs that challenge this. “In
American democracy, although sovereignty officially resides in the people, it is
implicitly understood that the ultimate sovereignty rests with God and that our
country’s actions are judged by a higher law. The president’s ultimate obligation
is to this higher law. In this capacity, if the majority of citizens or elected officials
make a decision that the president, as ‘head’ of American civil religion, deems to
be at odds with God’s plan, then he can refuse to go along with the majority. This
happened when Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation (1863)”
(Boss, p. 177.) We can look back and be pleased that Lincoln had the courage to
move our country forward past the horrors of slavery. But at the time it was very
controversial because he had to overrule the majority. When it works out we are
glad, but this can lead to real trouble as well.
The Dangers of Civil Religion
For good or evil, civil religion is very powerful. That is why even if you personally
do not believe in it, you have to be aware of this phenomenon because it
influences so many Americans, consciously or not. “At its best, American civil
religion is grounded in a natural law theory and natural rights ethics that hold a
nation accountable under a higher moral law. In this capacity, civil religion
provides a powerful motivation for mobilizing citizens to rally behind a higher
moral ideal” (Boss, p. 178.) When Martin Luther King, Jr. gave his famous “I
Have A Dream” speech part of its effectiveness was that he was appealing to
10
Americans to find this higher calling and higher law. This is the good side of civil
religion.
Despite the good, this appeal can also lead to madness, as it did, for example, in
Nazi Germany. “There is an ever-present danger that civil religion may become
unanchored from its roots in universal moral principles and a transcendent reality
and instead identify national interests with God’s plan for humanity. When this
happens, civil religion, as originally conceived by the founders of America,
becomes supplanted by cultural relativism. By sacralizing cultural norms and
values, civil religion gives them a transcendent authority that they would
otherwise lack. Rather than looking to natural law to judge a nation, the nation
itself becomes the object of worship, and any dissent or moral criticism is
oppressed in the name of patriotic duty” (Boss, p. 178.)
It is one thing to ask a country to rise up to higher levels of justice and freedom.
When we are doing that we are asking it to be accountable. But it is another thing
when we believe that God is backing us up no matter what. Then you get
comments such as “my country, right or wrong.” This is when what our country’s
demands are confused with divine command theory, and where a lack of fervent
and uncritical patriotism becomes confused with heresy and blasphemy. This can
be a very dangerous time and, ironically, a very unethical time as well.
Hopefully, Americans will always be able to find their way back to the central
importance of basic values as the standards for figuring out how to be in
relationship with civil religion. “Although civil religion can stray from its roots in
universal moral principle, in its truest form it can act as a powerful incentive to
justice. The moral ideals of the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights,
and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution have never been fully
realized in this country. While these documents may not be sacred and are
certainly not perfect, to their credit, the founders of this country sought to discern
natural laws and incorporate them into our nation’s thinking” (Boss, p. 179.)
In other words, true patriotism includes within it an aspiration to live up the
highest ideals of our founding documents, something that has not yet been done.
Professor Jacob Needleman wrote a beautiful book about what this entails. He
called his book The American Soul. If the intersection of philosophy and politics
interests you I would highly recommend this book!
Now that we have explored religion and ethics, I want to turn to another crucial
subject along the same lines. I want to investigate the nature of conscience and
our moral development.
Conscience and Moral Development
Most of the time we have a good idea about what to do when moral situations
come up. Usually if we have to choose between a bad option and a good option
11
we are clear about what to do. The ethical crisis comes when we have to choose
between two bad things. Do I tell a lie to protect someone? Lies are not good, but
protecting people is good. What ought I to do? “Immanuel Kant once said that the
basic questions of philosophy - including the question “What ought I to do?” - are
all fundamentally related to anthropology, or “What is man?” The study of moral
development takes place at this juncture of philosophical theory and the social
sciences. Any adequate theory of morality must take into consideration the
relevant facts about human nature and human behavior” (Boss, p. 190.) For the
rest of this lecture we will explore what it means to be human in terms of ethics.
In the process we will study why we don’t do the good even when we know what
it is. In other words, knowing the good, being able to reason out what is best, is
necessary but not sufficient for moral behavior. “Self-knowledge can help us
toward this goal. By learning about the psychological mechanisms that govern
our moral development, we can actually advance our moral growth” (Boss, p.
191.) This is important because it means that the striving for self-knowledge
actually helps us to grow into morally mature persons.
Interestingly enough, this self-realization helps us reach our potential in other
areas as well. “Cognitive-development theorists also claim that people who live
up to their potential and lead good lives will be happier, experience greater inner
peace and harmony, and be more satisfied with their moral decisions” (Boss, p.
191.) People who do not mature morally sometimes think that moral behavior
simply seems to require too much effort. But in the long run, if happiness is your
goal, it seems that practicing goodness is an important skill to learn.
Conscience: Culturally Relative or Universal?
What distinguishes most people as sane from those who are locked up for crimes
is that those who choose to do the right thing will tell you they do so because
they have a conscience. Sociopaths will tell you just the opposite. They do not
feel what they have done is wrong and they have no guilt feelings. So what is this
part of ourselves that we call our conscience? “Despite the centrality of the
concept of conscience in our lives, the concept itself has received little direct
attention from philosophers and psychologists. The English word conscience
comes from the Latin words com (‘with’) and scire (‘to know’). Conscience, in
other words, provides us with knowledge about what is right and wrong.
However, it is more than just a passive source of knowledge. Conscience
involves reason and critical thinking; it also involves feelings. Conscience not
only motivates us; it demands that we act in accord with it” (Boss, p. 191.) Many
people experience their conscience as a voice. Socrates said that his guidance
never told him what to do, but it would warn him away from what was not good.
Can we get closer to defining what conscience is? “Philosopher George Hegel
defined ‘true conscience [as] the disposition to will what is absolutely good.’
Many religious people view the conscience as divine guidance or the voice of
12
God speaking through our hearts. In Judaism, worshipping and following one’s
conscience are inseparable: ‘When our conscience is not at one with the actions
of our body, then our worship of our Creator is imperfect.’ The Ethiopian Book of
the Philosophers compares conscience to an inner light in the soul that not only
bears the fruit of love for one another but also gives us the ‘wisdom that
distinguishes what should be.’ The comparison of conscience with light or energy
is found in many other philosophers” (Boss, p. 192.) I have also heard
conscience described as a seed. It is a seed that can grow into a source of
nourishment and beauty, but because it is alive and needs care, it can also
wither away and die.
To all of these traditional understandings scholars have added a wealth of
information from the emerging fields of psychology and biology. When you hear
conscience discussed academically, it will usually include a number of aspects
that, when taken alone, do not add up to what we experience as conscience, but
when taken together allow us to see how it is that conscience seems to function
in most people. “There are three main forces that contribute to the shaping of our
conscience: (1) heredity or biological factors; (2) learning or environmental
factors, and (3) conscious moral direction” (Boss, p. 193.) Each of these areas is
important enough to address in some detail.
The Brain and Environmental Factors
We have learned a tremendous amount about psychology, including our
conscience, from the advances that have been made in studying our brain.
“There is strong evidence that the frontal lobe cortex in the brain plays a key role
in moral decision making. Most of the work in this area has been with sociopaths
- people who apparently lack a conscience or moral sense. A study of prisoners
found that, when sociopaths were compared to nonsociopathic criminals, the
former had specific deficits associated with frontal lobe functioning” (Boss, p.
194.) This does not mean that our entire conscience is a matter of brain
functioning - that would be reductionism - but it does mean that we have to have
some basic equipment in order to be considered moral beings.
Reductionism does not work because it only explains a possibility for a lack of
moral reasoning ability. It does not explain why people with perfectly adequate
brains do not act morally. “Although natural moral dispositions are apparently
present at the time of birth in most people, this is not enough to ensure the
development of moral character. Without community and nurture, a moral
capacity cannot develop” (Boss, p. 196.) We hold children and the
developmentally challenged less responsible for their actions because we do not
think that they understand fully the consequences of what they are doing. The
growing understanding of our brain and chemistry is making it ever more difficult
to know how to assess whether people are fully in control of themselves or not.
13
Assuming that we meet the basic conditions of mental health, we know that our
conscience is also not simply a given, but that it is formed over time. “Our
conscience is also shaped through the interactions of our natural moral
disposition with our early experiences and our environment (family, religion,
nation). While culture is not the source of our most basic moral sense, it helps
establish the boundaries and guidelines within which our moral sentiments and
principles express themselves. Sometimes, however, cultural norms run contrary
to the basic demands of morality. In these cases, our conscience helps us
discern which cultural norms are consistent with the demands of morality” (Boss,
p. 196.) Cultural relativists tend to think our conscience is totally formed by our
surroundings. But this is now in serious doubt. Studies have shown that even
very young children seem to have an inbuilt system for gauging whether things
are good and bad. But that is not to deny the also well established fact that our
culture plays a huge role in influencing how this inner sense of right or wrong is
understood and then applied in real life situations.
Autonomous Moral Reasoning
One way that our culture can influence us is in how it helps us or encourages us
to develop our conscience. Studies have shown that some cultures promote
moral growth and some don’t do as good of a job. We also know that this is the
same in families. Some parents teach their children to think about important
issues and they might even expose their children to different perspectives
through travel and community service work. All of this contributes to how well we
learn to think critically and whether or not we are able to ask good questions.
“Although innate and external forces can influence our conscience, the exercise
of the conscience demands active participation on our part through the use of
conscious and responsible deliberation” (Boss, p. 197.) It is true that some
people seem to be more naturally good or interested in reasoning out different
aspects of problems. But this is also a skill that can be taught and learned by
nearly everyone.
Some college degrees require ethics courses such as this one so that people are
given at least one formal chance in life to really ponder some of the difficult
issues of our day. Many people see a growing lapse of conscience on the part of
business, religious and government leaders. Why is this? Could it be at least
partially because many of these people were never taught the skills they needed
to function ethically in our world? That will not probably satisfy most of us, but it
may be one part of the problem.
The ancient philosophers taught that we needed an education in the virtues.
They seem to have taken it for granted that we were born with a conscience, but
felt this conscience needed more formal training than solely the example given to
it by family and culture. “Aristotle emphasized the importance of habituation practicing virtuous behavior. Confucian philosophy also teaches that, although
inborn moral sentiments are important, only through conscious reflection can we
14
achieve perfect goodness. The ability to engage in conscious moral direction - to
be a morally mature person - entails accepting responsibility for our actions
rather than simply reacting to our environment. One of the basic assumptions of
moral philosophy is that humans have free will and can, at least to some extent,
overcome negative influences in our lives” (Boss, p. 197.) In other words,
conscience seems to be a work in progress. Some people might have a more
natural “talent” for goodness, but unless there is something seriously wrong with
a human being, conscience can be developed.
A huge philosophical question that is still being debated thousands of years later
is the issue of whether or not humans are free. I cover this question in my
Introduction to Philosophy class, but we do not have the time to go into it in detail
here. Suffice it to say that there are people who argue eloquently on both sides.
Most people interested in ethics do believe that some minimal level of freedom is
possible, otherwise ethics becomes almost a meaningless subject.
A fairly safe position is to accept that much of our life is in fact conditioned, but
that within those conditions we not only have some freedom, but we also have
the possibility to grow in freedom as we grow in consciousness. “As beings who
are both free and embedded in society, we live under the constant tension of
balancing our social nature and our freedom. We cannot, nor would we want to,
deny the role that society plays in shaping our conscience. However, nor do we
want our identity and our conscience to be absorbed by society. On the other
hand, we are not simply passive computers receiving direct instructions from our
conscience. The exercise of the conscience involves will power or action on our
part. Because conscience is much more than gut feelings or a list of instructions
about how to behave, to make use of it, we also need to develop our powers of
discernment and to cultivate our moral sentiments” (Boss, pp. 198-199.)
I find this idea that freedom can increase a hopeful one. We all know people who
are considered so emotional that they can lose control. How truly free are they
then? But if they learn to work with their emotions they can learn to respond
consciously rather than react impulsively and they gain in freedom. So it seems
to be with our conscience. What is it we need to train, our emotions or our
minds?
The Affective and Cognitive Sides of the Conscience
Some people think that morality is simply a matter of thought. We should be able
to work out rationally the right thing to do and then go from there. Other people
put the emphasis on emotional development. These people say that it does not
matter how smart you are, if you don’t have the capacity to be sympathetic, then
you will not be all that moral. “Conscience can be broken down into two
elements: (1) affective (moral sentiments/emotions) and (2) cognitive (moral
reasoning). This division is artificial and is primarily a tool for trying to better
understand how our conscience works. Our affective or emotional side almost
15
always contains a cognitive aspect, and our reasoning is almost always informed
to some extent by our feelings. Traditional Western epistemology favors reason
as the source of moral knowledge. However, many Eastern philosophers, as well
as some Western philosophers such as David Hume and Nel Noddings, maintain
that moral sentiments are also sources of moral knowledge and that reason and
sentiment, rather than being opposed, complement one another” (Boss, p. 200.)
It seems so easy for academics to fall into false dualisms of thinking things have
to be one way or another. In reality life is a little more complex than that. So while
it makes perfect sense to admit up front that our conscience is a mix of the two, it
can be helpful to look at each side before we bring them together.
What do we mean by the emotions of morality? “Moral sentiments are emotions
that move us to feel moral approval or disapproval. These sentiments include,
among others, sympathy, ‘helper’s high,’ indignation or resentment, and guilt”
(Boss, p. 200.) Sometimes you cannot explain why something is wrong. Perhaps
you don’t have the words or you do not know enough about the issue, but
something in you just does not feel right. These are our emotional sentiments.
The most basic one is probably sympathy.
Sympathy has been studied in very young children who have not yet developed
the capacity to reason logically. This is part of the evidence that we are born with
something that we call a conscience and also that our moral feelings anticipate
our ability to actually reason morally. “Sympathy is ‘the capacity for and
inclination to imagine the feelings of others.’ Sympathy is regarded as an
important moral sentiment in virtually every ethical system in the world.
Sympathy expresses itself as both tenderness and joy at another’s happiness
and sadness or indignation at another’s misfortune or mistreatment. Through
sympathy, we move each other. Without sympathy, true intimacy and a genuine
sense of community would be impossible. To many moral philosophers,
sympathy is the greatest virtue and the cultivation of sympathy and compassion
our primary moral duty. Compassion, a more active form of sympathy, is the
combination of sympathy with praxis or social action” (Boss, p. 201.)
One way we see sympathy in action and can separate it out from thought is when
you choose to participate in a community service project or a place to donate
some money. I am sure we all agree that there are many worthy projects out
there and many causes that deserve our support. Yet our time and resources are
limited. So where do we actually send our money? If we can reason that two
places both need our money but we can only give money to one place then what
do we do? Usually we will give to the place that calls out to our sympathy the
most.
There are many other emotions that influence our morality. We usually enjoy the
good feeling we get when we do the right thing, most of us are pleased when
others thank us for our help, but we also experience negative emotions that are
linked to morality and ethics. These include moral outrage and indignation. “One
16
might wonder whether the Kitty Genovese syndrome - when people passively
stand by and watch with indifference as another person is beaten, raped, or even
killed - is, at least in part, the product of years of learning to stifle our moral
outrage. In our ‘live and let live’ society, righteous anger is frowned on and
passing judgment on others is considered disrespectful and even arrogant. ‘Who
are you to pass judgment?’ we are admonished. Given this nonjudgmental
atmosphere, it is not surprising that the moral outrage that often accompanies
moral judgment is often regarded as a bad feeling that we should work to get
beyond” (Boss, p. 205.)
There is a difference between judging people for dressing in a different way or
enjoying different music and food, and judging behavior that we consider poor.
But somehow it seems easy to miss seeing this difference. “Live and let live”
does not mean we have to put up with abuse and injustice. Gandhi in India and
Martin Luther King, Jr. in our country have shown us that it is possible to take a
stand in a loving way, without being self righteous or hating our enemies. But
again, this takes training and development.
The emotions associated with ethics are often the ones that make us feel bad.
Part of the problem here is that we have mixed up our terms. “There is a
confusion of guilt with shame. The word guilt is frequently used broadly to include
shame as well; however, it is important to distinguish between the two” (Boss, p.
206.) An easy way to remember the difference is that guilt comes from the inside
and shame comes from the outside. We don’t need to give into shame, but we
ignore guilty feelings at our own peril.
Another problem with guilt is that it has become associated with only neurotic
guilt, rather than as the voice of conscience. There are people who for a variety
of psychological reasons, feel guilty all of the time about any and every thing.
This is not good because it is not healthy. True guilt leads us to take action.
False guilt just makes us feel rotten and does not lead to a better place. “Guilt not
only demands that we accept moral responsibility for our actions but that we
make reparation to those we have harmed and, if necessary, change ourselves
to make a repeat of the harmful behavior less likely. However unpleasant guilt
may be, it seems to be essential to our well-being and that of others. Having a
guilty conscience is more than just a mental state. Our whole autonomic nervous
system is disrupted when we experience feelings of guilt. Both pain and guilt act
as damage control. Physical pain occurs when we damage our bodies, as a
signal for us to take steps to fix the damage or remove the cause of the harm. In
the same manner, guilt lets us know when something is morally wrong so that we
can take steps to correct the situation” (Boss, p. 206.)
One way we can discern neurotic guilt from healthy guilt is by how we feel after
we have taken appropriate action. Once we have done what we can, continuing
to feel guilty serves no purpose. That is a sign that it is no longer healthy. But
17
feelings are just one aspect of our conscience. Now let us look at the other
aspect and the role played by our minds.
It is interesting to see how our cognitive side balances out and supports our
affective side. “The cognitive side of our conscience is involved in making rational
judgments about what we ought to do. If we neglect or fail to develop the critical
cognitive side of our conscience, our moral sentiments can get us into trouble or
even lead us to commit immoral actions. Moral sentiments by themselves are
uncritical. People who are uncritically sympathetic make easy targets for those
who would take advantage of their kindness. Other people feel overwhelmed with
guilt but are unable to discern why or to devise a plan of action to remedy the
situation that gave rise to the guilt in the first place” (Boss, p. 207.)
The Buddhists refer to the problem of “idiot compassion.” This is the compassion
that rushes out with an open heart, only to make things worse because it is not
thought through. Parents sometimes call this “tough love.” A child may cause a
problem and the parent sees that it is in the child’s best interest to suffer through
the consequences. But sympathy will sometimes overrule and the parent will fix
things so that the child does not have to go through whatever he or she was
facing. As a result a valuable lesson might be lost and then something more
difficult can happen as a result.
Psychologists know that one of the surest defense mechanisms we have as
humans is our ability to rationalize almost anything. “An uncritical conscience is
likely to resort to rationalization. Rationalization involves the use of rhetoric,
fallacies, and resistance rather than logical analysis. People who rationalize their
harmful actions suffer from what is known as weakness of the will or a weak
conscience. Weak-willed people place nonmoral values such as popularity or
economic success above moral values and the demands of their conscience”
(Boss, p. 207.) We will look further at this component of moral action further
below.
The important thing to remember is that our mind and emotions work together.
Our best thinking and our best decisions regarding morality are the ones that
engage both our ability to be compassionate and sympathize with others, as well
as using our critical thinking skills. How we bring these sides of ourselves
together has much to do with the kind of self-image we live with. “Conscience not
only has a powerful influence in shaping both our conduct and our character; it is
also an essential part of who we are as individuals. Acting in good conscience
seems to be necessary for maintaining our sense of personal integrity. Our
conscience compels us to question cultural norms that require us to be insincere
or to pretend that we are someone we are not. To be at odds with our conscience
is to be out of harmony with our very being” (Boss, p. 208.) How much modern
unhappiness is the result of this lack of inner harmony?
The Stage Theory of Moral Development
18
I have used the term “development” quite a bit in this lecture. I have written of the
development of our conscience. What do we actually understand about this? Is
there such a thing and how does it work? “Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget (18961980) was one of the first to systematically study moral reasoning in children.
Children, he noticed, go through distinct stages in their moral development. The
first stage he labeled the stage of heteronomy. This stage is based on a ‘morality
of constraint.’ The second stage, the stage of autonomy, is based on a ‘morality
of cooperation.’ Although Piaget regarded moral development as part of human
nature, he also believed that interrelationships between the individual and society
are essential to nurture the development of a sense of moral duty” (Boss, p. 209.)
One of the things Piaget noticed was that morality advanced along lines that
were measurable, just as intellectual development moved along traceable lines.
Children varied at what age they might pass through a specific stage, but they
went through all of the stages if they were healthy, and they usually didn’t move
backward. It is like learning math. You start with the simple things and then you
move forward. Not everyone studies the higher reaches of math, but it is thought
possible to advance if one puts in the effort.
One image I have of conscience I shared above is that it is a seed within us that
can be nurtured or neglected. A student of Piaget’s continued working on the
stage model with something like this “seed” image in mind, which he saw as our
moral potential. “[Harvard psychologist Lawrence] Kohlberg (1927-1987),
believed that humans, with the exception of sociopaths and other severely
impaired people, have an inherent potential for growth from the lower (earlier) to
higher stages of moral development. These stages are transcultural and
represent ‘transformations in the organization of thought, rather than increasing
knowledge of cultural values.’ Each stage, according to him, is distinct and
reflects a level of moral judgment that is more complex than that of the preceding
stage. Gains that are made in moral judgment tend to be retained. The lower
stages are not so much replaced by higher stages as incorporated into them much like elementary school arithmetic becomes part of our way of
understanding calculus” (Boss, p. 212.) You first learn to be kind to your family,
then your friends, and then people you don’t know. But when you learn to be kind
to those people you don’t know, you don’t stop being kind to your family! In other
words, each stage is really like an expanding circle. As more are included in our
moral community, we are not neglecting those already in the circle.
There are many ways to track this moral development, and people since
Kohlberg have found other ways of doing so, but we will start with his method.
“Kohlberg identified three levels of moral development, each with two distinct
stages. In the preconventional stages, moral duty and moral community are
defined primarily in egocentric terms of oneself. Young children are
preconventional reasoners. The majority of adults in the United States are in the
conventional stages of moral reasoning. They are heteronomous moral
19
reasoners who look to outside sources - their peers or cultural norms - for moral
guidance. Less than 10 percent of American adults ever reach the
postconventional stages of autonomous moral reasoning” (Boss, pp. 212-213.)
People can move from preconventional to conventional to postconventional.
What is conventional? The average level of most people in any given society is
the norm, which is the conventional. What is interesting about this is that society
encourages children to grow out of their preconventional morality to become
members of that society in good standing. But the same society can actually
discourage further development because people who move past the conventional
stage make the majority uncomfortable! There is a reason that both Gandhi and
Martin Luther King, Jr. were murdered.
Can we know that post conventional is better than conventional? “The so-called
higher stages come later than the lower stages in human development, but this in
itself does not prove that the higher stages are morally better. Kohlberg was well
aware that we cannot logically draw a conclusion regarding what ought to be
from what is. Instead, higher stages are preferable because people at these
stages are more satisfied with their moral decisions. People, in general, prefer a
solution to a moral problem that uses the highest stage of moral reasoning
conceptually available to them. People who operate at a higher stage of moral
reasoning are less likely to make moral decisions that they will later regret”
(Boss, p. 213.)
So the proof of “better” is not that postconventional comes later, but that it brings
more joy and peace. When you talk to someone who grew up in a society where
racism was accepted as the norm (and therefore the conventional level) and then
they grew out of this level you hear about a tremendous relief. It simply feels
better to include more in our moral community rather than less. It is also more
logical. As a result of bringing emotions and mind together at a higher level there
is more inner harmony.
Why does Kohlberg think postconventional ethics is actually more rational?
“Kohlberg also pointed out that moral philosophers believe that the principled
reasoning that characterizes the higher stages is more desirable than the cultural
relativism of the conventional stages or the egoism or ethical subjectivism of the
preconventional stages. Most of the world’s moral philosophers have long held
that autonomous moral reasoning, universality and impartiality, compassion and
a concern for justice, and mutual respect are the hallmarks of sound moral
reasoning” (Boss, pp. 213-214.) As we read in the last lecture, relativism often
springs from noble intentions and engages our emotional sentiments. It often
feels right. But as we saw, it is difficult to defend rationally when you apply
careful reasoning to all of relativism’s implications. When you do so you see that
it can actually lead away from many of the very things it was set up to promote,
such as tolerance and respect.
20
Cross-Cultural Findings
One of the interesting things that has been learned as scholars have explored
our new global world is that these stages of moral development were not just
found in the children studied at Harvard. “Studies from more than forty Western
and non-Western countries support Kohlberg’s theory that stages of moral
development are universal. Cross-cultural findings also lend support to the claim
that some cultures are more prone to promote virtue in their citizens. For
example, when matched by age and education, people who live in the United
States score lower in measures of moral development than people from Iceland
or Canada but higher than people living in Taiwan” (Boss, p. 215.)
If people seem so different, how can these moral stages be similar?
Understanding this comes from making a distinction between deep structure and
surface structure. For example, humans have a surface structure that makes us
look very different from one another. Asians don’t look like Africans who don’t
look like Europeans. Skin color varies and clothing style varies. But on a deeper
level humans all share two arms and two legs, two eyes and two ears, and on
and on. How we dress our limbs differs, but that we have limbs does not differ.
Children develop through the preconventional to the conventional and this is
deep structure. How that conventional level is then applied can differ and this is
the surface structure.
Carol Gilligan: Women and the Care Perspective
The biggest problem with these studies done at Harvard is that they were all
done on boys. Are girls different? “The neglect of both philosophers and
psychologists to take women’s perspectives into account has created the false
impression that women are morally deficient compared to men. Carol Gilligan,
who had studied with Kohlberg, decided it was time to correct this. In her
interviews with women and through her study of women in literature, she
concluded that women’s moral development tends to follow a different path than
men’s. Men tend to be duty and principle oriented, women are more context
oriented and tend to view the world in a more emotional and personal way.
Women’s moral judgment, Gilligan found, is characterized by a concern for
themselves and others, accepting and maintaining responsibility within
relationships, attachment, and self-sacrifice. She named this the ‘care
perspective,’ in contrast to Kohlberg’s ‘justice perspective’” (Boss, p. 218.) It is
sometimes thought that men are hierarchical so they will talk about stages and
women won’t, but this too is an oversimplification. In fact women also grow
through stages, but they do so “in a different voice.”
Gilligan found the same stage development, but it looked different. “In her
research with women, Gilligan postulated three stages of moral development.
Although Gilligan’s and Kohlberg’s theories emphasize different aspects of moral
development, their stages are roughly parallel. Gender can influence how our
21
moral development unfolds, but the basic paradigms or ground plans that inform
our moral development are the same for both. For example, the preconventional
stage in both Gilligan’s and Kohlberg’s theories includes egoists and ethical
subjectivists. Similarly, people at the conventional stage are heteronomous
cultural relativists who look to their culture for moral guidance” (Boss, p. 220.)
What men and women seemed to be looking for differed.
For example, if boys and girls are playing a game and then someone loses and
starts to cry, the boys will often ignore the crying and move on. After all, the rules
are the rules and they must be adhered to! The girls will often want to give the
person who lost another chance. It is not that they don’t care about the rules; it is
just that they care more about preserving the relationship. This may be one
reason why (until recently that is) so many men have led large social movements
while neglecting their personal relationships with their family, while women will
often pour a great deal of energy into their families while ignoring the larger world
of social justice and politics. Thankfully, with the rise of the women’s liberation
movement, we are finding that more of a balance is coming into these areas. But
for centuries this seemed to be the way things were.
For thousands of years men and women were raised in cultures that are now
described as patriarchal. These are cultures where men have the power
positions and dominate the lives of their cultures. “The different descriptions of
the conventional stage are not surprising, given the different ways in which men
and women are socialized in our culture. Men, for the most part, are socialized to
be the upholders of law and order and to believe that maleness carries certain
privileges. Women, on the other hand, are taught that being a good woman
involves self-sacrifice and putting the welfare of others first. In both Kohlberg’s
and Gilligan’s theories, the postconventional stage is represented by
autonomous moral reasoning. The person looks to transcultural values - whether
in the form of principles of justice and respect or moral sentiments such as
compassion and empathy. The transition to the postconventional stage for
women, according to Gilligan, involves realizing that any individual woman has
as much moral value as the next person. Kohlberg emphasized cognitive
disequilibrium as playing a key role in pushing people into a higher stage of
moral development; Gilligan and many other feminist ethicists place more
importance on social disequilibrium as the ‘gate’ to moral development” (Boss, p.
221.) In other words, it is our discomfort with how things are that usually
motivates us to grow and change. One of the positive changes that seems to be
slowly but surely happening is that patriarchy is dying, and men and women are
coming together in new kinds of relationships that bring new levels of moral
maturity to both groups.
Synthesizing the Justice and Care Perspectives
Do you think boys and girls, men and women, think very differently on moral
subjects? Kohlberg and Gilligan may have both emphasized their own
22
perspectives too much. “Some studies support Gilligan’s theory, but others have
found gender differences in moral reasoning to be insignificant. In later studies,
Gilligan and others found that both the justice and care perspectives are present
in most people’s thinking, although each of us tends to favor one perspective
over the other. Although women are more likely to prefer the care perspective,
Gilligan acknowledges that some women have a strong justice orientation, and
some men, including many philosophers, are very empathetic and care oriented.
Buddhist ethics likewise emphasizes compassion and community over abstract
reason” (Boss, p. 222.)
Our moral stances may not have much to do with our gender and more to do with
how that sexuality is shaped. In cultures that separate the sexes strictly there will
be more differences. In cultures like our own where men and women are coming
together in more ways than ever these differences may become less oriented
toward gender differences, and simply represent different personality types that
can be found in both men and women.
Before I close this lecture I want to tie together what we have learned about
conscience and moral development by addressing the issue of why we do the
wrong thing, even when we are clear what the right thing is. “Proficiency in
making moral judgments clearly does not in itself guarantee that one will act
morally. For example, we may fail to act morally because of fear or pressure from
peers or authority figures even when we know what is right, a complex
phenomenon that cannot be represented as a single variable” (Boss, p. 224.)
In an ethics course, the cognitive aspect of things tends to be emphasized. But
there are actually four aspects of our morality that all need to work together in
order for us to behave morally and be able to live up to our own standards, to
“walk the talk.” “Psychologist James Rest identified four components of moral
behavior (1) moral sensitivity, (2) moral reasoning or judgment, (3) moral
motivation, and (4) moral character. These components work together to
produce moral behavior. A deficiency in any of these components can result in a
failure to act morally” (Boss, p. 224.) We will look at each one briefly.
If there is one area where we can clearly see that people seem born with
different inherent capacities, it is the area of moral sensitivity. “Moral sensitivity is
the awareness of how our actions affect others. It involves the ability to
empathize and imagine ourselves in another person’s shoes. Problems such as
poverty, social isolation, and homelessness exist, in part, because we simply
don’t see the problem” (Boss, p. 224.) We don’t see it in the sense that it does
not move us. This is especially apparent when it comes to world problems. We
are naturally more sensitive to those close to us. If a bad thing happens at our
school, it bothers us much more than if it happens at a school across the nation,
and even less if it happens across the world.
23
We start to become more sensitive by trying to see things from the perspective of
others. “The actual perception of a person in distress can trigger empathy,
hearing other people’s stories can also contribute to one’s consciousness rising.
Only when we are painfully sensitive to actual suffering can we begin to move
toward changing the social conditions that perpetuate injustice and suffering.
Indeed, one of the strengths of feminist care ethics is its recognition of the
importance of cultivating moral sensitivity” (Boss, p. 225.) One of the reasons
that community service is encouraged and sometimes required, is that it provides
this needed exposure to the misfortunes of others. Only when problems become
real to us do we start to work on solving them.
Moral Reasoning or Judgment and Moral Motivation
We have studied the cognitive aspect of this part above. “Despite the prevailing
focus on reason as the highest attribute of humans, recent studies of moral
behavior indicate that moral reasoning is insufficient in itself to bring about moral
action. On the other hand, without first engaging in critical judgment, our wellintentioned actions can hurt innocent people and lead to moral tragedies. Moral
judgment that is not tempered with moral sensitivity can lead to behavior that is
rigid and unfeeling. Justice untempered with feelings of mercy can lead to taking
revenge on the offending party” (Boss, p. 225.) This is why balance is so
important.
One of the best ways to actually sponsor moral growth in ourselves and in others
is to be challenged with new ways of thinking about things. “Real-life exposure to
ideas that do not fit in with our earlier, more simplistic ideas seems to be a
condition for the development of moral reasoning. Practice in resolving moral
dilemmas, the acquisition of proficiency in logic, and the study of ethical theory
also contribute to the development of this component. These strategies have
been found to be particularly effective when combined with a study of the stages
of moral development” (Boss, p. 226.) It is a funny thing, but the very exposure to
stage theory can help one grow to the next stage. Many of you taking this class
have already tried to discover what stage you are at in your moral reasoning.
This in turn gets you thinking critically about your life and values. Critical thought
is not enough to change morally, but it is a big step in the process.
If we are sensitive and we know what is right then what else do we need?
“Political philosopher Edmund Burke once wrote that the only thing necessary for
evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Many otherwise good people know
what is right and are sensitive to the moral issues involved; however, they lack
the motivation to put this knowledge into action or praxis. People who fail to act
on what they know is right are known as weak-willed” (Boss, p. 226.) There is a
kind of laziness that hits us. For example, if we become informed about a moral
issue then we might have to stop buying that product or boycott that store and
that is not convenient.
24
You can see this with people who invest money in companies that they would
never work for. Why do they do this? Because these investments make a good
return. For example, people who quit smoking will still invest in tobacco
companies because they are so profitable. “Moral motivation entails putting moral
values above competing nonmoral values. Nationalistic and economic values as
well as concerns about our popularity and conformity can all take precedence
over what we clearly recognize to be the morally right action. Dysfunctional
families, for example, often place a higher value on the appearance of harmony what others will think - than on the welfare of the individual members of the
family” (Boss, p. 226.) Perhaps many of us are not motivated to act because we
think our small part makes no difference. Do you see how quickly that stance can
simply become a rationalization?
Moral Character
All three of these areas come together to form what can be called our moral
character. “The last component of moral behavior is moral character. Moral
character is related to integrity. A person of high moral character has managed to
integrate the other three components of moral behavior into his or her
personality. Moral character predisposes us to act morally. It includes personality
traits such as ego strength, high self-esteem, courage, assertiveness,
perseverance, and strength of convictions” (Boss, p. 228.)
We have many aspects of our personality and they have to come together in
order for us to act morally. This is another reason why psychologists think the
healthier a person is psychologically the more moral they will be. It works the
other way too. The more moral we can bring ourselves to be, the more we bring
disperse parts of ourselves together into a new and higher harmony that
promotes health.
Our health is also intimately related to our chances to reach our potential for selfactualization and self-realization. “Our moral development, how we interact with
others, and our self-actualization are all intimately connected. The higher our
level of moral development, the more consistent our behavior will be with our
beliefs and our conscience. Morally good people not only sympathize with those
who are suffering but, when feasible, take active steps to alleviate that suffering,
and to restore justice and a sense of community. They are willing to speak out on
behalf of themselves and others when they witness an injustice and will take
effective and well-thought-out action to correct that injustice” (Boss, p. 231.)
Morally mature people can sometimes make us feel uncomfortable when we are
around them because they challenge us, but most of the time they are also the
people we want around because they won’t take advantage of us, they are
helpful, and they bring out the best in us.
Summary
25
In the first lecture I wrote about how philosophy can be a spiritual path for some
people because it is a way of staying open and keeping the question alive.
Nowhere is this so evident than in our struggles to grow wise in relationship to
the search for goodness. “Moral maturity involves overcoming resistance and
rigidity in one’s thinking and one’s perception of the world. The ability to be
flexible in our thinking involves both the recognition that there is more than one
way to approach a given problem and the ability to effectively integrate the
various components of moral development” (Boss, p. 231.)
While this process can sometimes be difficult it is also a wonderful process
because it pushes us beyond boredom and stagnation and helps wake us up. All
of the wisdom traditions agree that we cannot experience true peace and joy until
we awaken from our ordinary state into the enlightened state. One sign of that
state in all who reach it is the amount of compassion with which they love the
world. What nobler goal could we have?
Over the past couple of lectures we have explored relativism and then religion
and conscience. It is now time for us to jump into the world of universal ethics.
That is, jump into the world of those who advocate for such an ethics, and see if
any of their theories make more sense to us. We will explore theories that fill
volumes of ethics books; theories such as ethical egoism and utilitarianism, duty
ethics and virtue ethics. In the meantime, keep in mind that you have already
grown in your life and changed a great deal. What is to say that you have
reached the upper limits of what is possible? Perhaps the best and deepest, the
more compassionate and the more loving life is still to come, if only you are
willing to take that journey!
Bibliography:
Judith A. Boss, Ethics For Life: A Text With Readings, Fourth Edition, [New York,
New York: McGraw Hill, 2008]
Donald Palmer, Looking at Philosophy: The Unbearable Heaviness of Philosophy
Made Lighter, Fourth Edition, [New York, New York: McGraw Hill, 2006]
Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy, [New York, New York: Simon
and Schuster, 1945]
Richard Tarnas, The Passion of the Western Mind: Understanding the Ideas That
Have Shaped Our World View, [New York, New York: Harmony Books, 1991]
Bruce Waller, You Decide! Current Debates in Contemporary Moral Problems,
[New York, New York: Pearson, 2006]
26