Bradley J. Thames PHI208 THESIS STATEMENTS Ashford Unive.docx

Bradley J. Thames
PHI208: THESIS STATEMENTS Ashford University
THESIS STATEMENTS
This guide is intended to help you construct a strong thesis
statement for an ethics paper. But it should not take the place
of the resources provided through the Ashford Writing Center,
especially when using those resources is part of the
assignment instructions. The Thesis Generator is a helpful
resource that can be found by going to the Ashford Writing
Center at awc.ashford.edu. Look under the "Writing Resources"
tab, then under "Writing Tools,” and click on "Thesis
Generator.” For additional help on crafting a good thesis
statement, look under the "Writing Resources" tab, then under
"Essay Development,” and click on "Thesis Statements.”
The thesis serves as the backbone of your paper. Or if you like,
it states the central idea of the paper, around which
everything else revolves. Every part of your paper is meant to in
some way explain and defend that thesis. So it’s really
important to construct a thesis that is focused enough that you
can defend it in the space given to your paper, and for that

thesis to be clear, concrete and specific, and to include a
statement of the primary reasons for that position.
So let’s look at some examples of some strong and some weaker
theses. We’re going to be looking at topics that are not
under the list of options, but you can use them as models for
how to construct a thesis on the topic that you choose from
this list.
First, you will be presented with a weak thesis statement, and
then, you should try to think about why it’s weak and what
might make it stronger before reading the explanation.
1. Weak Thesis
Abortion is a really tough issue that has sparked a lot of
controversy and debate for over four decades, and there
are many good arguments on both sides.
What makes it weak?
No position. In other words, you don’t really tell me what your
stand is on this issue; you simply reiterate that it
is an ethically important issue, which should already be
obvious. Be sure that your thesis clearly states your
position.

Some Stronger Alternatives
• Even though abortion involves taking the life of a biologically
human creature, its relative lack of
development, considered in comparison to the burdens a woman
may face in carrying it to term, means
that abortion may be morally justified in some cases, and that is
a determination that should be left up to
the individual woman to make with the full support of the law.
Bradley J. Thames
• Anytime there is uncertainty about whether a class of beings is
human, a liberal democratic society should
always err on the side of humanity, thus we should consider
fetuses to be human and criminalize most
cases of abortion.
These statements specify the position that the person takes and
provide a concise statement of the primary reasons
for that position. They also limit themselves to one particular

aspect of this wide and complex debate. Compare
that with the next thesis.
2. Weak Thesis
Racism is a problem in this country because blacks are treated
as inferiors, there is too much prejudice within law
enforcement, and there are many racist stereotypes in the media
and popular culture.
What makes it weak?
Too broad. While each of these points is worth considering, it
would be impossible to adequately defend all of
these claims within the scope of a single paper. It is important
to make sure that the claim being defended is
narrow and focused enough that you can adequately defended it
in the space provided by the assignment.
Remember that it is better to be narrow and deep, rather than
broad and shallow.
• When we examine rates of incarceration and instances of
police brutality, we find that people of color are
targeted at much higher rates than whites, and this reveals an
inherent racism within the criminal justice

system that is unjust and demands substantial and concerted
efforts to change.
• While some people may find the image of the “Mammy”
character in literature, media, and advertising to
be warm and comforting, it reinforces the idea that the “proper
place” of the black woman is in a servile
position, which in turn supports a conception of the inherent
inferiority of blacks that conflicts with the
notion that all humans are inherently equal.
Notice how each of these theses limits itself to one of the many
ways in which racism might be a force in society.
Moreover, it doesn't simply describe the sociological facts; it
also includes a clear ethical claim, i.e., a claim that
invokes conceptions of value, right and wrong, and so forth.
Compare that with the next thesis.
3. Weak Thesis
Placing more restrictions on gun ownership will make it much
harder for potential criminals to have access to
guns.

Bradley J. Thames
What makes it weak?
Not an ethical thesis. The claim made by this thesis statement is
a sociological one, not an ethical one, strictly
speaking; in other words, it is a claim about what effects on
society certain policies will most likely have. An
ethical thesis would state the ethical significance of that claim,
if it were true. The truth of the claim may mean
that we have a responsibility to impose tighter restrictions on
gun ownership, but it may not. Whether or not it
does depends on how that fact relates to our conceptions of
ethical value and moral responsibility.
• While supporters of gun control are correct in holding that
there should be some restrictions on gun
ownership, I will argue that restrictions similar to those in many
European countries would cause more
harm than it would prevent if implemented in the United States,
given how many people in our society
depend upon guns for protection.

• While tighter gun control measures might mean that some
people will not be able to engage as freely in
certain leisure activities like sport hunting and target shooting,
the fact that human life itself is far more
valuable than such activities and that lives that would be saved
by tighter gun control measures justifies
the inconvenience such measures would cause for a few people.
In the first case, the thesis appeals to the idea that our moral
responsibility is to ensure the greatest good and least
harm. In the second case, it appeals to the ethical idea that the
value of human life itself outweighs the value of
any particular enjoyments within that life. These ideas are all
debatable, as are the sociological facts, but the
relation between the two is the focus of the thesis; the body of
the paper would be focused on defending these
debatable claims.
4. Weak Thesis
I believe that doctors have an obligation to always respect the
rights of their patients.
What makes it weak?

Too vague about some of the key terms. Watch out for terms
like “rights” and “respect” and others that can mean
many different things. You want to instead be as specific as you
can. In the alternatives below, notice how the
“rights” in question are specified, and what it means to
“respect” a patient (and what it doesn’t mean) are also
clarified.
• A patient always has the right to be told the truth by his or her
doctor so that he or she can make the most
informed decisions, even when telling the truth results in
greater harm than good.
Bradley J. Thames
• A patient has the right to the most effective form of treatments
possible from her doctor, and if a doctor
believes that a patient will be better treated if they aren’t aware
of the whole situation, then it is
permissible for the doctor to lie.

5. Weak Thesis
Criminals are scourges on society and it’s ridiculous to think
they deserve to keep living.
What makes it weak?
Too extreme, indefensible, uses inflammatory language. This is
a formal philosophical essay, not a screed, not
a Facebook post or blog comment, not a conversation among
friends. Make sure your position can be
adequately defended with reasons and evidence, and that you
maintain a respectful, formal tone.
• When someone knowingly and deliberately takes the life of
someone else without just cause, the only
kind of punishment that truly fits that crime and satisfies the
demands of justice is to have his or her own
life taken in return.
• It is never right to take the life of an innocent person, and
since there is always a possibility that we might
execute an innocent person, capital punishment is not justified.

6. Weak Thesis
Everyone has their own religious beliefs, and who are we to
force them to pray if they don’t want to?
What makes it weak?
Rhetorical question, not a statement. Remember that this is a
thesis statement. In fact, avoid using rhetorical
questions anywhere in your essay. Ideas are almost always
communicated much more clearly and precisely
when they are stated positively and directly.
• Since public prayer implicitly expresses an endorsement of
religious belief, officially sanctioned prayer in
public schools constitutes a violation of religious freedom and
should not be allowed.
• While official school prayers are a violation of religious
freedom, banning any student-led prayer
gathering on campus grounds is equally a violation of religious
freedom.

Bradley J. Thames
Again, remember that a thesis announces your position, and it is
something you can argue for. I should know what
conclusion you will be trying to defend on this topic, and the
primary reasons supporting that conclusion. And for ethics
papers, the thesis should have a clear ethical statement to make.
In sum, you should avoid a thesis statement that
1. Doesn’t state the position clearly and directly.
2. Is too broad.
3. Does not state an ethical claim.
4. Is too vague.
5. Is extreme, indefensible, or uses inflammatory language.
6. Uses rhetorical questions.
When you have constructed your thesis, run through these
examples and consider whether your thesis statement makes
any of these mistakes. If it does, try to revise it, and if you are
unsure or are having trouble, please consult your instructor.
THESIS STATEMENTS

LIST OF ACCEPTABLE PRIMARY RESOURCES FOR THE
WEEK
THREE ASSIGNMENT AND WEEK FIVE FINAL PAPER
These are the primary resources that you can cite when
explaining a moral theory in order to fulfill the relevant portion
of
the resources requirement.
* Indicates readings included in the “Required Readings”
portion of the course.
Utilitarianism
*Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism, in the original version in the
textbook, or in the version by Jonathan Bennett. Retrieved
from www.earlymoderntexts.com
• See the guidance for the required portions of the text.
Haines, W. (n.d.). Consequentialism. Internet Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Retrieved from
http://www.iep.utm.edu/conseque/
Singer, P. (2003). Voluntary euthanasia: A utilitarian
perspective. Bioethics, 17(5/6), 526-541.

Deontology
*Kant, Immanuel. Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals in
the original version in the textbook, or in the version by
Jonathan Bennett. Retrieved from www.earlymoderntexts.com
O’Neill, O. (1993). A simplified account of Kant’s ethics. In T.
Regan (Ed.) Matters of Life and Death, 411-415.
Retrieved from
http://users.manchester.edu/Facstaff/SSNaragon/Online/texts/20
1/O'Neill, Kant.pdf
Virtue Ethics
*Aristotle. (1931). Nicomachean ethics. (W.D. Ross, Trans.).
Oxford, GBR: Clarendon Press. Retrieved from
http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/8438/pg8438.html
Hursthouse, R. (2012). Virtue ethics. In E. Zalta (Ed.), The
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/
MacIntyre, A. (1984). After virtue. Notre Dame, IN: University
of Notre Dame Press.
• Chapters 14-15 are included in Chapter 6 of the text.

1
http://insite.bridgepoint.local/dept/ops/pni/Navigator%20Images
/Ashford%20Logo%20New.jpg
Feminist/Care Ethics
*Held, V. “Feminist transformations of moral theory.”
• Included in Chapter 6 of the text. See the guidance for the
required portions of the text.
*Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory
and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press. Retrieved from
https://lms.manhattan.edu/pluginfile.php/26517/mod_resource/c
ontent/1/Gilligan In a Different Voice.pdf.
*Noddings, N. (2010). Maternal factor: Two paths to morality.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. (213-220)
(Ebook)
2
http://insite.bridgepoint.local/dept/ops/pni/Navigator%20Images
/Ashford%20Logo%20New.jpgLIST OF ACCEPTABLE
PRIMARY RESOURCES FOR THE WEEK THREE
ASSIGNMENT AND WEEK FIVE FINAL

PAPERUtilitarianismDeontologyVirtue EthicsFeminist/Care
Ethics
PHI208: WEEK FIVE ASSIGNMENT GUIDANCE
WEEK FIVE ASSIGNMENT GUIDANCE
Notes and Advice
This paper is a demonstration of what you have learned about
moral reasoning based on our examining of ethical theories
and specific ethical issues. As such, you should focus your
attention on carefully spelling out the reasoning that supports
your conclusion, and relating that to the theories we have
discussed in class.
You are free to write on the same topic and question you wrote
on in previous papers or choose a different topic and
question.
If you choose a different topic, you would benefit from going
through the Week One Assignment exercises.
For a list of acceptable topics to start with, see the options from
the list of topics available in the online course. If you are
still unsure of your topic or of how properly to focus it into a

relevant ethical question, you are strongly encouraged to
consult with your instructor.
You are free to draw upon the work you did in previous papers,
and reuse parts that you feel were strong, but you are not
to simply recycle the previous papers. This paper should reflect
the culmination of the development of your thoughts on
this issue, and many of the requirements for the final paper
cannot be satisfied by a heavily recycled paper.
The consideration of an objection against your own view is a
way of showing that your view has the support of good
reasons and can answer its strongest objections. Therefore, aim
at identifying and addressing the strongest opposing
argument you can, bearing in mind that a good thesis should be
able to respond to the best arguments for the other side.
Thesis Statement
The thesis statement is more than just a position statement of
the sort you provided in the first assignment; rather, it states
the position and the primary reasons in such a way that the
reader should have a clear sense of how the reasons support the
position, which is what will be spelled out and explained in the
body of the paper. Please see the handout on thesis

statements available in the online course.
Checklist
This checklist can help you ensure that you have completed all
of the assignment instructions.
PHI208: WEEK FIVE ASSIGNMENT GUIDANCE
Make sure that you
describes the ethical problem (including the most relevant
issues), summarizes your procedure in the paper, and concludes
with your thesis statement.
issue, and show as clearly and persuasively as you can
how that reasoning supports your position.
examined in the course.
imagine being raised by someone holding a contrary
position.

your own view can withstand it.
ums up what you showed in the
paper and offers some final reflections, including a
revised statement of the thesis.
acceptable primary sources for that theory (for a total of
two).
lize at least two other resources from the required or
recommended readings and media or scholarly sources
found in the Ashford University Library.
resources page.
d list of resources.
Carefully review the Grading Rubric for the criteria that will be
used to evaluate your assignment.
http://managedcourse.next.ecollege.com/pub/content/d8683201-
d88c-4dc9-932c-
ab1d0dc65225/PHI208.W5.GradingRubricFinal.pdfWEEK FIVE

ASSIGNMENT GUIDANCENotes and AdviceThesis
StatementChecklist
Running head: SHORTENED TITLE
The Title of the Paper
First name Last name
PHI 208 Ethics and Moral Reasoning
Prof. Heraclitus of Ephesus
January 1, 2014
SHORTENED TITLE 2
Title
Begin with the ethical question you are addressing. The rest of
your first paragraph
should introduce the topic by briefly but precisely discussing
the concrete topic under
which this question falls, including any necessary context,
background information, etc.
This should draw upon your work in the Week One Assignment,
but should be more
succinct and reflect the development of your understanding of

those ideas throughout the
course, as well as any revision, narrowing, and focusing of the
problem under
consideration. Your introduction should include a preview of
what you plan to do in the
paper, and how you will proceed. Conclude your introductory
paragraph with a thesis
statement that states your position on the question and the
primary reasons in such a way
that the reader should have a clear sense of how the reasons
support the position, which is
what will be spelled out and explained in the body of the paper.
Demonstration Moral Reasoning
This section of the Final Paper is more open-ended than other
parts of the papers
you have been working on (including other parts of this paper).
By now you will have
seen how moral reasoning involves moving back and forth
between general ideas, such as
principles, rules, values, purposes and ends, and so forth, and
particular concrete
judgments. We have examined different forms that can take,
where the general ideas

might be utilitarian principles, deontological duties, or
Aristotelian ideas about the human
telos and the virtues. Your job here is demonstrate that you
have acquired a sense of how
that kind of reasoning proceeds, and that you have understood
and considered the
examples that were studied in the class.
SHORTENED TITLE 3
Along the way, you will need to relate what you are doing to
these other theories.
For example, you might be taking a utilitarian approach, or an
Aristotelian one, and
would make reference to Mill or Aristotle in the course of doing
so, and contrast your
approach with Kant’s. Or you might model your approach on the
reasoning of one of the
contemporary readings that dealt with specific issues. Also, you
will likely need to
provide factual evidence to support the movement from general
ideas to concrete
particulars.
Objection and Response

Each of the assignments involved examining a possible
objection to the main
argument, and this paper will do so as well, but follow up with a
response to the objection.
An objection articulates a plausible reason why someone might
find the argument weak
or problematic. Or it might raise a consideration supporting a
rival position, or a counter-
example that seems to go against certain claims you have made.
You should explain how
it represents and objection, and do so in a way that would be
acceptable to someone who
disagrees with your own argument. You would then provide the
best response you can to
the objection, showing as clearly and persuasively as you can
how it does not undermine
your position, without simply making the same argument you
have already made over
again (that is, your response should say something new).
Conclusion
Provide a conclusion that sums up what you showed in the paper
and offers some
final reflections, including a revised statement of the thesis (do

not simply repeat your
thesis, but rephrase it in light of the discussion you just had).
SHORTENED TITLE 4
Total Word Count: 1500 to 2000 words (note: that’s at least
twice as long as this outline).
SHORTENED TITLE 5
References
Required: Primary text in support of theory 1, drawn from the
list of acceptable
resources.
Required: Primary text in support of theory 2, drawn from the
list of acceptable
resources.
Required: Scholarly resource drawn from either the required or
recommended readings or
from the Ashford University Library.
Required: Scholarly resource drawn from either the Required or
Recommended

Resources or from the Ashford University Library.
Suggested: Other resources as needed.
Note that resources must be cited in the text as well as included
in the bibliography to
satisfy the requirement.
The textbook and guidance do not count toward the resources
requirement, though you
are free to use them as additional resources.
In a Different Voic e
Psychological Theory and Women's Developmen t
Carol Gilligan
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp . 24-39
.
In 1914, with his essay "On Narcissism," Freud swallows his
distaste at the thought o f
"abandoning observation for barren theoretical controversy" and
extends his map of the
psychological domain . Tracing the development of the capacity
to love, which he equates wit h
maturity and psychic health, he locates its origins in the
contrast between love for the mother and

love for the self. But in thus dividing the world of love into
narcissism and "object" relationships ,
he finds that while men's development becomes clearer,
women's becomes increasingly opaque .
The problem arises because the contrast between mother and
self yields two different images o f
relationships . Relying on the imagery of men's lives in charting
the course of human growth ,
Freud is unable to trace in women the development of
relationships, morality, or a clear sense o f
self. This difficulty in fitting the logic of his theory to women's
experience leads him in the end t o
set women apart, marking their relationships, like their sexual
life, as "a `dark continent' fo r
psychology" (1926, p . 212) . .
Thus the problem of interpretation that shadows the
understanding of women' s
development arises from the differences observed in their
experience of relationships . To Freud,
though living surrounded by women and otherwise seeing so
much and so well, women' s
relationships seemed increasingly mysterious, difficult to
discern, and hard to describe . While thi s
mystery indicates how theory can blind observation, it also
suggests that development in women i s
masked by a particular conception of human relationships .
Since the imagery of relationship s
shapes the narrative of human development, the inclusion of
women, by changing that imagery,
implies a change in the entire account .
The shift in imagery that creates the problem in interpreting
women's development i s
elucidated by the moral judgments of two eleven-year-old
children, a boy and a girl, who see, in th e

same dilemma, two very different moral problems . While
current theory brightly illuminates th e
line and the logic of the boy's thought, it casts scant light on
that of the girl . The choice of a girl
whose moral judgments elude existing categories of
developmental assessment is meant t o
highlight the issue of interpretation rather than to exemplify sex
differences per se . Adding a new
line of interpretation, based on the imagery of the girl's thought,
makes it possible not only to se e
development where previously development was not discerned
but also to consider differences i n
the understanding of relationships without scaling these
differences from better to worse .
The two children were in the same sixth-grade class at school
and were participants in th e
rights and responsibilities study, designed to explore different
conceptions of morality and self . Th e
sample selected for this study was chosen to focus the variables
of gender and age whil e
maximizing developmental potential by holding constant, at a
high level, the factors of intelligence ,
education, and social class that have been associated with moral
development, at least as measure d
by existing scales . The two children in question, Amy and Jake,
were both bright and articulate and ,
at least in their eleven-year-old aspirations, resisted easy
categories of sex-role stereotyping, since
1
Amy aspired to become a scientist while Jake preferred English
to math . Yet their moral judgments

seem initially to confirm familiar notions about differences
between the sexes, suggesting that the
edge girls have on moral development during the early school
years gives way at puberty with th e
ascendance-of formal logical •thought°in boys .
' ° . .
° "
The dilemma that these eleven-year-olds were asked to resolve
was one in the series devise d
by Kohlberg to measure moral development in adolescence by
presenting a conflict between mora l
norms and exploring the logic of its resolution . In this
particular 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 . In the standard format of Kohlberg's interviewing
procedure, the description of th e
dilemma itself — Heinz's predicament, the wife's disease, the
druggist's refusal to lower his price —
is followed by the question, "Should Heinz steal the drug?" The
reasons for and against stealing
are then explored through a series of questions that vary and
extend the parameters of the dilemm a
in a way designed to reveal the underlying structure of moral
thought .
Jake, at eleven, is clear from the outset that Heinz should steal
the drug . Constructing the
dilemma, as Kohlberg did, as a conflict between the values of
property and life, he discerns th e
logical priority of life and uses that logic to justify his choice :

For one thing, a human life is worth more than money, and if th
e
druggist only makes $1,000, he is still going to live, but if
Heinz
doesn't steal the drug, his wife is going to die . (Why is life
worth
more than money?) Because the druggist can get a thousand
dollar s
later from rich people with cancer, but Heinz can't get his wife
again .
(Why not?) Because people are all different and so you couldn't
get
Heinz's wife again .
Asked whether Heinz should steal the drug if he does not love
his wife, Jake replies that h e
should, saying that not only is there "a difference between
hating and killing," but also, if Hein z
were caught, "the judge would probably think it was the right
thing to do ." Asked about the fact
that, in stealing, Heinz would be breaking the law, he says that
"the laws have mistakes, and yo u
can't go writing up a law for everything that you can imagine . "
Thus, while taking the law into account and recognizing its
function in maintaining socia l
order (the judge, Jake says, "should give Heinz the lightest
possible sentence"), he also sees the law
as man-made and therefore subject to error and change . Yet his
judgment that Heinz should steal
the drug, like his view of the law as having mistakes, rests on
the assumption of agreement, a
societal consensus around moral values that allows one to know
and expect others to recognize
what is "the right thing to do . "

Fascinated by the power of logic, this eleven-year-old boy
locates truth in math, which, h e
says, is "the only thing that is totally logical ." Considering the
moral dilemma to be "sort of like a
math problem with humans," he sets it up as an equation and
proceeds to work out the solution .
Since his solution is rationally derived, he assumes that anyone
following reason would arrive a t
the same conclusion and thus that a judge would also consider
stealing to be the right thing fo r
Heinz to do . Yet he is also aware of the limits of logic . Asked
whether there is a right answer to
moral problems, Jake replies that "there can only be right and
wrong in judgment," since th e
parameters of action are variable and complex . Illustrating how
actions undertaken with the best o f
intentions can eventuate in the most disastrous of consequences,
he says, "like if you give an ol d
2
lady your seat on the trolley, if you are in a trolley crash and
that seat goes through the window, i t
might be that reason that the old lady dies. "
Theories of developmental psychology illuminate well the
position of this child, standing a t
the juncture' of childhood and . adoleescence,' at what Piaget
describes as . the pinnacle of childhoo d
intelligence, and beginning through thought to discover a wider
universe of possibility . The
moment of preadolescence is caught by the conjunction of
formal operational thought with a

description of self still anchored in the factual parameters of his
childhood world -- his age, hi s
town, his father's occupation, the substance of his likes,
dislikes, and beliefs . Yet as his self-
description radiates the self-confidence of a child who has
arrived, in Erikson's terms, at a favorabl e
balance of industry over inferiority -- competent, sure of
himself; and knowing well the rules of th e
game -- so his emergent capacity for formal thought, his ability
to think about thinking and t o
reason things out in a logical way, frees him from dependence
on authority and allows him to fin d
solutions to problems by himself.
This emergent autonomy follows the trajectory that Kohlberg's
six stages of moral
development trace, a three-level progression from an egocentric
understanding of fairness based o n
individual need (stages one and two), to a conception of fairness
anchored in the share d
conventions of societal agreement (stages three and four), and
finally to a principled understandin g
of fairness that rests on the free-standing logic of equality and
reciprocity (stages five and six) .
While this boy's judgments at eleven are scored as conventional
on Kohlberg's scale, a mixture o f
stages three and four, his ability to bring deductive logic to bear
on the solution of moral dilemmas ,
to differentiate morality from law, and to see how laws can be
considered to have mistakes point s
toward the principled conception of justice that Kohlberg
equates with moral maturity .
In contrast, Amy's response to the dilemma conveys a very
different impression, an imag e
of development stunted by a failure of logic, an inability to

think for herself . Asked if Heinz should
steal the drug, she replies in a way that seems evasive and
unsure :
Well, I don't think so . I think there might be other ways beside
s
stealing it, like if he could borrow the money or make a loan o r
something, but he really shouldn't steal the drug -- but his wife
shouldn't die either .
Asked why he should not steal the drug, she considers neither
property nor law but rather the effect
that theft could have on the relationship between Heinz and his
wife :
If he stole the drug, he might save his wife then, but if he did, h
e
might have to go to jail, and then his wife might get sicker
again, an d
he couldn't get more of the drug, and it might not be good . So,
they
should really just talk it out and find some other way to make th
e
money .
Seeing in the dilemma not a math problem with humans but a
narrative of relationships tha t
extends over time, Amy envisions the wife's continuing need for
her husband and the husband' s
continuing concern for his wife and seeks to respond to the
druggist's need in a way that would
sustain rather than sever connection . Just as she ties the wife's
survival to the preservation o f
relationships, so she considers the value of the wife's life in a
context of relationships, saying that i t
would be wrong to let her die because, "if she died, it hurts a lot

of people and it hurts her ." Sinc e
3
Amy's moral judgment is grounded in the belief that, "if
somebody has something that would kee p
somebody alive, then it's not right not to give it to them," she
considers the problem in the dilemm a
to arise not from the druggist's assertion of rights but from his
failure of response .
As the-interviewer proceeds . with-the-series-of questions-that
follow from-Kohlberg' s
construction of the dilemma, Amy's answers remain essentially
unchanged, the various probe s
serving neither to elucidate nor to modify her initial response .
Whether or not Heinz loves his wife ,
he still shouldn't steal or let her die; if it were a stranger dying
instead, Amy says that "if th e
stranger didn't have anybody near or anyone she knew," then
Heinz should try to save her life, but
he should not steal the drug . But as the interviewer conveys
through the repetition of questions tha t
the answers she gave were not heard or not right, Amy's
confidence begins to diminish, and he r
replies become more constrained and unsure . Asked again why
Heinz should not steal the drug ,
she simply repeats, "Because it's not right ." Asked again to
explain why, she states again that theft
would not be a good solution, adding lamely, "if he took it, he
might not know how to give it to hi s
wife, and so his wife might still die ." Failing to see the
dilemma as a self-contained problem i n
moral logic, she does not discern the internal structure of its

resolution ; as she constructs th e
problem differently herself, Kohlberg's conception completely
evades her.
Instead, seeing a world comprised of relationships rather than of
people standing alone, a
world that coheres through human connection rather than
through systems of rules, she finds th e
puzzle in the dilemma to lie in the failure of the druggist to
respond to the wife . Saying that "it i s
not right for someone to die when their life could be saved," she
assumes that if the druggist wer e
to see the consequences of his refusal to lower his price, he
would realize that "he should just giv e
it to the wife and then have the husband pay back the money
later ." Thus she considers the solutio n
to the dilemma to lie in making the wife's condition more
salient to the druggist or, that failing, i n
appealing to others who are in a position to help .
Just as Jake is confident the judge would agree that stealing is
the right thing for Heinz t o
do, so Amy is confident that, "if Heinz and the druggest had
talked it out long enough, they coul d
reach something besides stealing ." As he considers the law to
"have mistakes," so she sees thi s
drama as a mistake, believing that "the world should just share
things more and then peopl e
wouldn't have to steal ." Both children thus recognize the need
for agreement but see it as mediate d
in different ways — he impersonally through systems of logic
and law, she personally through
communication in relationship . Just as he relies on the
conventions of logic to deduce the solutio n
to this dilemma, assuming these conventions to be shared, so
she relies on a process of

communication, assuming connection and believing that her
voice will be heard . Yet while hi s
assumptions about agreement are confirmed by the convergence
in logic between his answers an d
the questions posed, her assumptions are belied by the failure of
communication, the interviewer' s
inability to understand her response .
Although the frustration of the interview with Amy is apparent
in the repetition of question s
and its ultimate circularity, the problem of interpretation is
focused by the assessment of her
response . When considered in the light of Kohlberg's definition
of the stages and sequence o f
moral development, her moral judgments appear to be a full
stage lower in maturity than those o f
the boy . Scored as a mixture of stages two and three, her
responses seem to reveal a feeling o f
powerlessness in the world, an inability to think systematically
about the concepts of morality o r
law, a reluctance to challenge authority or to examine the logic
of received moral truths, a failur e
even to conceive of acting directly to save a life or to consider
that such action, if taken, coul d
possibly have an effect . As her reliance on relationships seems
to reveal a continuing dependenc e
4
and vulnerability, so her belief in communication as the mode
through which to resolve moral
dilemmas appears naive and cognitively immature .
Yet Amy's description of herself conveys a markedly different

impression. Once again, th e
hallmarks-of-the preadolescent -child' depict 'a-child-secure-in-
her-sense-of herself ;' confident in the
substance of her beliefs, and sure of her ability to do something
of value in the world . Describing
herself at eleven as "growing and changing," she says that she
"sees some things differently now ,
just because I know myself really well now, and I know a lot
more about the world ." Yet the world
she knows is a different world from that refracted by Kohlberg's
construction of Heinz's dilemma .
Her world is a world of relationships and psychological truths
where an awaremenss of th e
connection between people gives rise to a recognition of
responsibility for one another, a
perception of the need for response . Seen in this light, her
understanding of morality as arisin g
from the recognition of relationship, her belief in
communication as the mode of conflict resolution ,
and her conviction that the solution to the dilemma will follow
from its compelling representatio n
seem far from naive or cognitively immature . Instead, Amy's
judgments contain the insight s
central to an ethic of care, just as Jake's judgments reflect the
logic of the justice approach . He r
incipient awareness of the "method of truth," the central tenet of
nonviolent conflict resolution, an d
her belief in the restorative activity of care, lead her to see the
actors in the dilemma arrayed not a s
opponents in a contest of rights but as members of a network of
relationships on whos e
continuation they all depend . Consequently her solution to the
dilemma lies in activating th e
network by communication, securing the inclustion of the wife
by strengthening rather than
severing connections .

But the different logic of Amy's response calls attention to the
interpretation of th e
interview itself. Conceived as an interrogation, it appears
instead as a dialogue, which takes o n
moral dimensions of its own, pertaining to the interviewer's
uses of power and to th e
manifestations of respect . With the shift in the conception of
the interview, it immediately
becomes clear that the interviewer's problem in understanding
Amy's response stems from the fac t
that Amy is answering a different question from the one the
interviewer thought had been posed .
Amy is considering not whether Heinz should act in this
situation ("should Heinz steal the drug?" )
but rather how Heinz should act in response to his awareness of
his wife's need ("Should Hein z
steal the drug?") . The interviewer takes the mode of action for
granted, presuming it to be a matter
of fact; Amy assumes the necessity for action and considers
what form it should take . In the
interviewer's failure to imagine a response not dreamt of in
Kohlberg's moral philosophy lies th e
failure to hear Amy's question and to see the logic in her
response, to discern that what appears ,
from one perspective, to be an evasion of the dilemma signifies
in other terms a recognition of th e
problem and a search for a more adequate solution .
Thus in Heinz's dilemma these two children see two very
different moral problems — Jake a
conflict between life and property that can be resolved by
logical deduction, Amy a fracture o f
human relationship that must be mended with its own thread .
Asking different questions that aris e
from different conceptions of the moral domain, the children

arrive at answers that fundamentally
diverge, and the arrangement of these answers as successive
stages on a scale of increasing mora l
maturity calibrated by the logic of the boy's response misses the
different truth revealed in th e
judgment of the girl. To the question, "What does he see that
she does not?" Kohlberg's theor y
provides a ready response, manifest in the scoring of Jake's
judgments a full stage higher tha n
Amy' s in moral maturity ; to the question, "What does she see
that he does not?" Kohlberg's theor y
has nothing to say . Since most of her responses fall through the
sieve of Kohlberg's scorin g
system, her responses appear from his perspective to lie outside
the moral domain .
5
Yet just as Jake reveals a sophisticated understanding of the
logic of justification, so Am y
is equally sophisticated in her understanding of the nature of
choice . Recognizing that "if both the
roads went in totally separate ways, if you pick one, you'll
never know what would happen if yo u
went the other way, ZZ she explains that "that's-the-chance you-
have-to take, and like I said, it's jus t
really a guess ." To illustrate her point "in a simple way," she
describes her choice to spend th e
summer at camp :
I will never know what would have happened if I had stayed
here,
and if something goes wrong at camp, I'll never know if I stayed
her e

if it would have been better . There's really no way around it
becaus e
there's no way you can do both at once, so you've got to decide,
bu t
you'll never know .
In this way, these two eleven-year-old children, both highly
intelligent and perceptive abou t
life, though in different ways, display different modes of moral
understanding, different ways o f
thinking about conflict and choice . In resolving Heinz's
dilemma, Jake relies on theft to avoi d
confrontation and turns to the law to mediate the dispute .
Transposing a hierarchy of power into a
hierarchy of values, he defuses a potentially explosive conflict
between people by casting it as an
impersonal conflict of claims . In this way, he abstracts the
moral problem from the interpersona l
situation, finding in the logic of fairness an objective way to
decide who will win the dispute . But
this hierarchical ordering, with its imagery of winning and
losing and the potential for violenc e
which it contains, gives way in Amy's construction of the
dilemma to a network of connection, a
web of relationships that is sustained by a process of
communication . With this shift, the moral
problem changes from one of unfair domination, the imposition
of property over life, to one o f
unnecessary exclusion, the failure of the druggist to respond to
the wife .
This shift in the formulation of the moral problem and the
concomitant change in the
imagery of relationships appear in the responses of two eight-
year-old children Jeffrey and Karen ,
asked to describe a situation in which they were not sure what

was the right thing to do :
Jeffrey
When I really want to go to my friends an d
my mother is cleaning the cellar, I think about
my friends, and then I think about my mother,
and then I think about the right thing to do .
(But how do you know it's the right thing t o
do?) Because some things go before other
things .
Kare n
I have a lot of friends, and I can't always play
with all of them, so everybody's going t o
have to take a turn, because they're all m y
friends . But like if someone's all alone, I'll
play with them . (What kinds of things do yo u
think about when you are trying to make that
decision?) Urn, someone all alone ,
loneliness .
While Jeffrey sets up a hierarchical ordering to resolve a
conflict between desire and duty, Kare n
describes a network of relationships that includes all of her
friends . Both children deal with the
issues of exclusion and priority created by choice, but while
Jeffrey thinks about what goes first ,
Karen focuses on who is left out.
The contrasting images of hierarchy and network in children's
thinking about moral conflic t
and choice illuminate two views of morality which are
complementary rather than sequential or

6
opposed . But this construction of differences goes against the
bias of developmental theory towar d
ordering differences in a hierarchical mode . The
correspondence between the order o f
developmental theory and the structure of the boys' thought
contrasts with the disparity betwee n
existing theory and'the`structure'manifest`in"the thought of
the"girls Yet'in neitheryc'omparison doe s
one child's judgment appear as a precursor of the other's
position . Thus, questions arise concerning
the relation between these perspectives : what is the
significance of this difference, and how do
these two modes of thinking connect? These questions are
elucidated by considering th e
relationship between the eleven-year-old children's
understanding of morality and their
descriptions of themselves :
Jake
Amy
(How would you describe yourself to yourself? )
Perfect . That's my conceited side . What do
You mean my character? (What do you
you want — anyway that I choose to describe
think?) Well, I don't know. I'd describe

myself?
myself as, well, what do you mean ?
(If you had to describe the person you are in a way that you
yourself
would know it was you, what would you say? )
Well, I'd say that I was someone who like s
school and studying, and that's what I want t o
do with my life . I want to be some kind of a
scientist or something, and I want to d o
things, and I want to help people . And I think
that's what kind of person I am, or what kin d
of person I try to be . And that's probably
how I'd describe myself . And I want to d o
something to help other people . (Why is
that?) Well, because I think that this worl d
has a lot of problems, and I think that
everybody should try to help somebody els e
in some way, and the way I'm choosing i s
through science .
I'd start off with eleven years old . Jake [last
name] . I'd have to add that I live in [town] ,
because that is a big part of me, and also tha t
my father is a doctor, because I think tha t
does change me a little bit, and that I don' t
believe in crime, except for when your nam e
is Heinz ; that I think school is boring ,
because I think that kind of changes your
character a little bit . I don't sort of know ho w
to describe myself, because I don't know ho w
to read my personality . (If you had to
describe the way you actually would describ e

yourself, what would you say?) I like corn y
jokes . I don't really like to get down to work ,
but I can do all the stuff in school . Every
single problem that I have seen in school I
have been able to do, except for ones that tak e
knowledge, and after I do the reading, I hav e
been able to do them, but sometimes I don't
want to waste my time on easy homework .
And also I'm crazy about sports . I think,
unlike a lot of people, that the world still ha s
hope . . . Most people that I know I like, and I
have the good life, pretty much as good a s
any I have seen, and I am tall for my age .
7
In the voice of the eleven-year-old boy, a familiar form . of
self-definition appears ,
resonating to the inscription of the young Stephen Daedalus in
his geography book : "himself, hi s
name and where he was," and echoing the descriptions that
appear in Our Town, laying out acros s
the coordinatesµof'time-and-space a•hierarchical order in
which-to-define one's'place . Describing
himself as distinct by locating his particular position in the
world, Jake sets himself apart from that
world by his abilities, his beliefs, and his height . Although
Amy also enumerates her likes, her
wants, and her beliefs, she locates herself in relation to the
world, describing herself through
actions that bring her into connection with others, elaborating
ties through her ability to provid e
help . To Jake's ideal of perfection, against which he measures
the worth of himself, Am y

counterposes an ideal of care, against which she measures the
worth of her activity . While sh e
places herself in relation to the world and chooses to help
others through science, he places the
world in relation to himself as it defines his character, his
position, and the quality of his life .
The contrast between a self defined through separation and a
self delineated throug h
connection, between a self measured against an abstract ideal of
perfection and a self assesse d
through particular activities of care, becomes clearer and the
implications of this contrast extend b y
considering the different ways these children resolve a conflict
between responsibility to others an d
responsibility to self. The question about responsibility
followed a dilemma posed by a woman' s
conflict between her commitments to work and to family
relationships . While the details of thi s
conflict color the text of Amy's response, Jake abstracts the
problem of responsibility from the
context in which it appears, replacing the themes of intimate
relationship with his own imagery o f
explosive connection :
Jake
Amy
(When responsibility to oneself and responsibility to others
conflict ,
how should one choose?)
You go about one-fourth to the others and

Well, it really depends on the situation. If
three-fourths to yourself you have a responsibility with
somebody else,
then you should keep it to a certain extent, but
to the extent that it is really going to hurt yo u
or stop you from doing something that yo u
really, really want, then I think maybe yo u
should put yourself first. But if it is your
responsibility to somebody really close t o
you, you've just got to decide in that situatio n
which is more important, yourself or that
person, and like I said, it really depends on
what kind of person you are and how you feel
about the other person or persons involved .
(MT ?)
Because the most important thing in your
decision should be yourself ; don't let yoursel f
be guided totally by other people, but yo u
have to take them into consideration . So, i f
what you want to do is blow yourself up wit h
an atom bomb, you should maybe blow
Well, like some people put themselves an d
things for themselves before they put othe r
people, and some people really care abou t
other people. Like, I don't think your job i s
as important as somebody that you reall y
love, like your husband or your parents or a
8

Jake (cont)
Amy (cont)
yourself up with a hand grenade because you
very close friend . Somebody that you reall y
are thinking about your neighbors who would
care for – or if it's just your responsibility t o
die also .
–your-job -or somebody tha t , you barely know,
then maybe you go first – but if it' s
somebody that you really love and love a s
much or even more than you love yourself,
you've got to decide what you really lov e
more, that person, or that thing, or yourself.
(And how do you do that?) Well, you've got
to think about it, and you've got to thin k
about both sides, and you've got to think
which would be better for everybody or bette r
for yourself, which is more important, and
which will make everybody happier . Like if
the other people can get somebody else to d o
it, whatever it is, or don't really need yo u
specifically, maybe it's better to do what you
want, because the other people will be jus t
fine with somebody else so they'll still b e
happy, and then you'll be happy too becaus e
you'll do what you want .
(What does responsibility mean? )

It means pretty much thinking of others when
That other people are counting on you to d o
I do something, and like if I want to throw a
something, and you can't just decide, "Well ,
rock, not throwing it at a window, because I
I'd rather do this or that ." (Are there othe r
thought of the people who would have to pay
kinds of responsibility?) Well, to yourself.' If
for that window, not doing it just for yourself ;
something looks really fun but you might hurt
because you have to live with other people
yourself doing it because you don't reall y
and live with your community, and if you do
know how to do it and your friends say ,
something that hurts them all, a lot of people
"Well, come on, you can do it, don't worry, "
will end up suffering, and that is sort of the
if you're really scared to do it, it's you r

wrong thing to do .
responsibility to yourself that if you think yo u
might hurt yourself; you shouldn't do it ,
because you have to take care of yourself an d
that's your responsibility to yourself .
Again Jake constructs the dilemma as a mathematical equation,
deriving a formula that
guides the solution : one-fourth to others, three-fourths to
yourself. Beginning with hi s
responsibility to himself; a responsibility that he takes for
granted, he then considers the extent t o
which he is responsible to others as well . Proceeding from a
premise of separation but recognizing .
that "you have to live with other people," he seeks rules to limit
interference and thus to minimiz e
hurt . Responsibility in his construction pertains to a limitation
of action, a restraint of aggression ,
guided by the recognition that his actions can have effects on
others, just as theirs can interfere with
him . Thus rules, by limiting interference, make life in
community safe, protecting autonom y
through reciprocity, extending the same consideration to others
and self.
9
To the question about conflicting responsibilities, Amy again
responds contextually rathe r
than categorically, saying "it depends" and indicating how
choice would be affected by variation s
in character and circumstance . Proceeding from a premise of

connection, that "if you have a
responsibility with'somebody-else,-you-should•keep • it," .she
then consider s , the-extent to which sh e
has a responsibility to herself Exploring the parameters of
separation, she imagines situation s
where, by doing what you want, you would avoid hurting
yourself or where, in doing so, you woul d
not thereby diminish the happiness of others . To her,
responsibility signifies response, an extensio n
rather than a limitation of action . Thus it connotes an act of
care rather than the restraint o f
aggression . Again seeking the solution that would be most
inclusive of everyone's needs, sh e
strives to resolve the dilemma in a way that "will make
everybody happier ." Since Jake i s
concerned with limiting interference, while Amy focuses on the
need for response, for him th e
limiting condition is, "Don't let yourself be guided totally by
others," but for her it arises when
"other people are counting on you," in which case "you can't
just decide, 'Well, I'd rather do this o r
that .' " The interplay between these responses is clear in that
she, assuming connection, begins t o
explore the parameters of separation, while he, assuming
separation, begins to explore th e
parameters of connection. But the primacy of separation or
connection leads to different images o f
self and of relationships .
Most striking among these differences is the imagery of
violence in the boy's response ,
depicting a world of dangerous confrontation and explosive
connection, where she sees a world o f
care and protection, a life lived with others whom "you may
love as much or even more than yo u
love yourself" Since the conception of morality reflects the

understanding of social relationships ,
this difference in the imagery of relationships gives rise to a
change in the moral injunction itself .
To Jake, responsibility means not doing what he wants because
he is thinking of others ; to Amy, it
means doing what others are counting on her to do regardless of
what she herself wants . Both
children are concerned with avoiding hurt but construe the
problem in different ways -- he seeing
hurt to arise from the expression of aggression, she from a
failure of response .
If the trajectory of development were drawn through either of
these childrens' responses, i t
would trace a correspondingly different path . For Jake,
development would entail coming to see th e
other as equal to the self and the discovery that equality
provides a way of making connection safe .
For Amy, development would follow the inclusion of herself in
an expanding network of
connection and the discovery that separation can be protective
and need not entail isolation . In
view of these different paths of development and particularly of
the different ways in which th e
experiences of separation and connection are aligned with the
voice of the self, the representatio n
of the boy's development as the single line of adolescent growth
for both sexes creates a continua l
problem when it comes to interpreting the development of the
girl .
Since development has been premised on separation and told as
a narrative of failed
relationships -- of pre-Oedipal attachments, Oedipal fantasies,
'preadolescent chumships, an d
adolescent loves -- relationships that stand out against a

background of separation, onl y
successively to erupt and give way to an increasingly emphatic
individuation, the development o f
girls appears problematic because of the continuity of
relationships in their lives . Freud attributes
the turning inward of girls at puberty to an intensification of
primary narcissism, signifying a
failure of love or "object" relationships . But if this turning
inward is construed against a
background of continuing connection, it signals a new
responsiveness to the self, an expansion o f
care rather than a failure of relationship . In this way girls, seen
not to fit the categories of
relationships derived from male experience, call attention to the
assumptions about relationship s
1 0
that have informed the account of human development by
replacing the imagery of explosiv e
connection with images of dangerous separation .
1 1
page 1page 2page 3page 4page 5page 6page 7page 8page 9page
10page 11

Bradley J. Thames PHI208 THESIS STATEMENTS Ashford Unive.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Bradley J. Thames PHI208 THESIS STATEMENTS Ashford Unive.docx

Similar to Bradley J. Thames PHI208 THESIS STATEMENTS Ashford Unive.docx (12)

More from aryan532920

More from aryan532920 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Bradley J. Thames PHI208 THESIS STATEMENTS Ashford Unive.docx