PHI210RS Module 7 AVP Transcript Title: Moral Development and the Ethics of Care Title Slide Narrator: Welcome to this presentation on moral development and the ethics of care. Slide 2 Title:The Development of Moral Reasoning and the Ethics of Care Slide content: Text: · The ethics of care and Kohlberg’s measurement of the development of moral reasoning · The Heinz dilemma: A man named Heinz considers whether or not to steal a drug which he cannot afford to buy in order to save the life of his wife Narrator: The ethics of care is a recent development. Its proponents, notably psychologist Carol Gilligan, were motivated to highlight what they thought was a crucial aspect of ethics that was being neglected by mainstream approaches to ethics: the relational character of caring, which occurs in particular circumstances and cannot be universalized. Psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg, Gilligan’s mentor, had developed a way to measure the development of moral judgment, which ordered people’s moral development on a scale, 1 marking the lowest level and 6 the highest. The Kohlbergian assessment of moral development asks subjects to respond to moral problems. The most famous one is the Heinz dilemma: A man named Heinz considers whether or not to steal a drug which he cannot afford to buy in order to save the life of his wife. Subjects’ moral development score depends on how they answer such moral problems. This kind of test is still being administered. The Defining Issues Test (DIT), for instance, rests on Kohlberg’s framework. Kohlberg, following in the footsteps of developmental psychologist Jean Piaget, assumed that lower stages of development are marked by a reliance on concrete thinking, while higher levels require abstract thought. Dependence on concrete objects and circumstances is an indication of a lower level of reasoning. Relying on feeling is associated with a lack of abstraction and lack of reasoning. The next three slides present Kohlberg’s description of the moral stages. You will notice that they recapitulate the approaches to thinking about ethics that we have examined in previous modules. Slide 3 Title:Kohlberg’s Level I: Preconventional Moral Thinking Slide Content: Chart with four columns and three rows Line 1: Column headings - Stage, What is Right, Reasons for Doing Right, Social Perspective of Stage Line 2: Stage 1: Heteronomous morality, to avoid breaking rules backed by punishment-obedience, Avoidance of punishment-superior power of authorities, Egocentric point of view. Actions considered physically rather than in terms of psychological interests of others  Line 3: Stage 2: Individualism, Following rules only when it is to one’s interest-acting to meet one’s interests, To serve one’s needs or interests-recognizing that others act to serve their own interests, Concrete individualistic perspective. Everyone has their own interests-what is right is relative to the individual Narrator: Kohlberg describes this level .

1. PHI210RS Module 7 AVP Transcript
Title: Moral Development and the Ethics of Care
Title Slide
Narrator: Welcome to this presentation on moral development
and the ethics of care.
Slide 2
Title:The Development of Moral Reasoning and the Ethics of
Care
Slide content: Text:
· The ethics of care and Kohlberg’s measurement of the
development of moral reasoning
· The Heinz dilemma: A man named Heinz considers whether or
not to steal a drug which he cannot afford to buy in order to
save the life of his wife
Narrator: The ethics of care is a recent development. Its
proponents, notably psychologist Carol Gilligan, were
motivated to highlight what they thought was a crucial aspect of
ethics that was being neglected by mainstream approaches to
ethics: the relational character of caring, which occurs in
particular circumstances and cannot be universalized.
Psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg, Gilligan’s mentor, had
developed a way to measure the development of moral
judgment, which ordered people’s moral development on a
scale, 1 marking the lowest level and 6 the highest.
The Kohlbergian assessment of moral development asks
subjects to respond to moral problems. The most famous one is
the Heinz dilemma: A man named Heinz considers whether or
not to steal a drug which he cannot afford to buy in order to

2. save the life of his wife.
Subjects’ moral development score depends on how they answer
such moral problems.
This kind of test is still being administered. The Defining Issues
Test (DIT), for instance, rests on Kohlberg’s framework.
Kohlberg, following in the footsteps of developmental
psychologist Jean Piaget, assumed that lower stages of
development are marked by a reliance on concrete thinking,
while higher levels require abstract thought. Dependence on
concrete objects and circumstances is an indication of a lower
level of reasoning. Relying on feeling is associated with a lack
of abstraction and lack of reasoning. The next three slides
present Kohlberg’s description of the moral stages. You will
notice that they recapitulate the approaches to thinking about
ethics that we have examined in previous modules.
Slide 3
Title:Kohlberg’s Level I: Preconventional Moral Thinking
Slide Content: Chart with four columns and three rows
Line 1: Column headings - Stage, What is Right, Reasons for
Doing Right, Social Perspective of Stage
Line 2: Stage 1: Heteronomous morality, to avoid breaking rules
backed by punishment-obedience, Avoidance of punishment-
superior power of authorities, Egocentric point of view. Actions
considered physically rather than in terms of psychological
interests of others
Line 3: Stage 2: Individualism, Following rules only when it is
to one’s interest-acting to meet one’s interests, To serve one’s
needs or interests-recognizing that others act to serve their own

3. interests, Concrete individualistic perspective. Everyone has
their own interests-what is right is relative to the individual
Narrator: Kohlberg describes this level as characteristic of the
outlook of most children under 9, some adolescents, and many
criminal offenders. At this level, individuals do not yet
understand nor uphold societal rules and expectations. Rules
and social expectations are something external to the self. At
the first stage, the individual responds strictly to threats or
rewards directed to self. At the second stage, the individual
anticipates that what other people do impacts what is in one’s
interest. He sees morality in terms of exchanges with others that
impact self-interest.
Slide 4
Title:Kohlberg’s Stage II: Conventional Moral Thinking
Slide Content: Chart with four columns and three rows
Line 1: Column headings - Stage, What is Right, Reasons for
Doing Right, Social Perspective of Stage
Line 2: Stage 3: Mutual interpersonal relationships, and
interpersonal conformity, Living up to what others expect of
people in one’s social role. Keeping mutual relationships, such
as trust, loyalty, respect, and gratitude, The need to be a good
person in one’s own eyes and those of other persons. Caring for
others; golden rule. Desire to maintain rules and authority that
support stereotypical good behavior, Perspective of the
individual in relationship with other individuals. Awareness of
shared feelings, agreements and expectations, which take
primacy over individual interests.

4. Line 3: Stage 4: Social system and social conscience,Fulfilling
the actual duties to which one has agreed. Laws are to be
upheld, To keep the institution going as a whole, to avoid
breakdown in the system,
Differentiates societal point of view from interpersonal
agreement or motives.
Takes the point of view of the system that defines roles and
rules.
Narrator: Kohlberg describes this level as characteristic of the
outlook of most adolescents and adults. At this level,
individuals conform to and uphold the rules of society or
authority, not out of calculation for personal advantage, but
because they accept these rules. The Level 2 individual has
internalized the rules and expectations of others, especially of
authorities. The perspective of a Stage 3 individual is the
perspective of the individual as a member of a small group,
such as family or friends. The Stage 3 individual thinks of
morality in terms of relationships of caring and trust. In Stage
4, the individual graduates to thinking of roles and
responsibilities in institutional wholes, or in society as a whole.
Slide 5
Title:Kohlberg’s Stage III: Postconventional Moral Thinking
Slide Content: Chart with four columns and three rows
Line 1: Column headings - Stage, What is Right, Reasons for
Doing Right, Social Perspective of Stage
Line 2: Stage 5: Social contract or utility and individual rights,
Being aware that most values and rules are relative to one’s
group. Some nonrelative values like life and liberty must be
upheld in any society, because they are part of an impartial
social contract, Sense of obligation based on social contract,
Concern that laws and duties be based on rational calculation of

5. overall utility, Prior-to-society perspective. Perspective of a
rational individual aware of values and rights prior to social
attachments and contracts. Integrates perspectives by formal
mechanisms of agreement, contract
Line 3: Stage 6: Universal ethical principles, Following self-
chosen universal principles: the equality of human rights and
respect for the dignity of human beings, Belief in rational,
universal moral principles and a sense of personal commitment
to principles, Perspective of a moral point of view. Perspective
is that of any rational individual who recognizes that persons
are ends in themselves
Narrator: Kohlberg describes this level as something that is
reached by a minority of adults, usually only after the age of 20.
At the postconventional level, individuals accept society’s rules
because they understand and accept the general moral principles
that underlie them. Postconventional individuals are capable of
reflecting on matters of principle. They will not follow rules
merely by convention, but because they have chosen them on
the basis of reflective examination. As you may notice, the
highest level of moral development in Stage 6 is in effect the
implementation of Kantian duty theory: The highest forms of
ethical reasoning are universalizable and recognize the dignity
of persons who are capable of making choices based on reason.
Stage 5 runners-up are reasoning in accordance with moral
rights, reasoning in accordance with the principle of utility, and
thinking in terms of the social contract.
Slide 6
Title:Gilligan’s Critique of Kohlberg’s Assumptions
Slide Content: Text:
Amy and Jake’s responses to the Heinz Dilemma:

6. · Amy: Telling a story about the relationships between
individuals; resolving conflict through communication
· Jake: Solving a math problem with humans
· Gilligan: Amy’s way is not inferior to Jake’s way
Narrator: Gilligan found that girls’ responses to the Heinz
dilemma were rated as inferior to boys’ responses. Kohlberg’s
finding that, in general, girls and women demonstrate an
inferior level of moral development to boys and men seemed
counterintuitive. Examining responses to the Heinz dilemma by
two eleven-year-olds, Amy and Jake, Gilligan saw that Amy’s
responses were noted as evasive and confused. According to
Gilligan, Amy tried to think of possible ways of solving the
problem. She thought of the problem in terms of a narrative that
evolves over time and that involves the relationships between
Heinz, Heinz’ wife, and the pharmacist. Her narrative
incorporated getting the people involved in the story to
communicate as a way to solve the problem. Jake thought of the
issue as a conflict between life and property and took it to be a
math problem with humans.
Gilligan’s point is that it is plainly odd to think of Amy’s way
as morally inferior to Jake’s way. Amy’s way is registered in
Kohlberg’s approach as an inability to think systematically.
Broadening the point, Gilligan thought that Amy’s way is
characteristic of an ethics of care. Kohlberg’s approach accepts
the assumption that universalizing reason, basically Kant’s way,
marks the highest accomplishment of human moral thinking,
followed by thinking in terms of rights and utility. Gilligan
rejects the assumption of a hierarchical ordering that places
abstract thinking above thinking in terms of narratives
involving human relations. Nevertheless, she too accepts that
the egocentric preconventional stage, as Kohlberg described it,
denotes a stage of moral immaturity.