JOURNAL 5

Nellie Gotebeski

Semptember 29, 2009

Moral Development

When I look at people around me, how do intuitions get them into trouble? What kind of cultural narratives do people use to motivate or justify their behavior?

Intuition is typically defined as a direct perception of truth independent of any reasoning process. It is an effortless and quick, non-deliberate choice. Therefore, when we make decisions based on our intuition it is assumed that we do not use moral judgment as a guide. Without moral judgment guiding our actions, it is understandable why intuitions can get us into trouble. In Eidelson’s Dangerous Ideas, he lists five belief domains that may control us on an individual or a group level. When we act intuitively, it can be assumed that we may subconsciously act according to these five core beliefs. The results of this intuitive process can lead to destructive consequences and can get people in trouble. The five belief domains are: superiority, injustice, vulnerability, distrust, and helplessness. 

On the other hand, Bargh and Ferguson state, “higher mental processes that have traditionally served as quintessential examples of choice and free will--such as goal pursuit, judgment, and interpersonal behavior-have been shown recently to occur in the absence of conscious choice or guidance. The two psychologists declare that moral judgment is primary intuition and reasoning is post-hoc. 

Thus the debate that is risen is whether moral judgment can occur at this quick, effortless, and automatic level. I decide to investigate the matter by observing people around me. I will observe their intuitions and then listen to their narratives to see how they justify their behavior. 

College is a prime location to see people acting intuitively. For instance, sporting events are a great place to observe intuitive actions. When athletes are caught up in the moment, they may let their emotions get the best of them and react contrary to how they would normally behave. For example, during Notre Dame’s victory against Michigan State, one our receivers caught a touchdown pass and afterwards jumped into the Michigan State band. When I asked Golden about it, he stated that he didn’t really think about it, it just happened. He had a ton of momentum and excitement from catching the pass and therefore, displaced the energy by jumping on top of the “enemy.” Another intuitive reaction I observed occurred on Tuesday afternoon in Debartlo Hall. A Notre Dame student fell down the steps and dropped her books everywhere. Several students immediately started to laugh when she fell. These laughing students, some being my good friends, told me it was an automatic reaction. They said they probably would not have liked people laughing at them if they fell, but they couldn’t control it. They said that if they could have had some control or time to deliberate their choices they would not have laughed at the girl who fell. Intuitive reactions, while often leading to regretful behavior, can also lead to positive circumstances. For instance, we hear about the man who runs and pushes a young girl out of the way of a moving car. Obviously, this occurs so fast and the man who performs this action does not have much time to thoroughly weigh his options. However, something tells him that it is morally right to save this girls life and he acts upon this intuition.

From my observations, it is evident that our intuitions can lead us to perform moral actions and immoral actions. However, from the cultural narratives it is still under debate whether a high reasoning occurs or not. Some people said that their actions were uncontrollable and they didn’t think about it, while others said it was something they knew they had a moral obligation to do. It seems as though afterwards we can easily reflect on our actions and try to discover what guided us to behave that way. However, when it comes to intuitive actions, it becomes more difficult. These actions occur so quickly that perhaps there was some conscious moral judgment underlying the actions or perhaps it just occurred automatically without any reasoning at all. In seems to be a reoccurring theme, that those who behave against their moral standards, claim it was unconscious and they would have acted differently if they had time to deliberate the situation. While those who act morally, claim that they did this act because they morally knew it was the right thing to do, even if they were only given a few milliseconds to analyze the situation. 

JOURNAL 4

Nellie Gotebeski

Semptember 22, 2009

Moral Development

What does mainstream of popular culture assume about human nature? What are the clues that tell me what it assumes? How does this fit with my own view? How about my view of myself?

We have all heard the popular advertising quote “sex sells,” well apparently so does violence. Whether Hollywood believes it or not, they typically depict human nature as violent. I have turned on the television several times in the last five years, only to find humans cheating, lying, or acting aggressively. I often wonder what happened to the old shows that promoted altruistic behavior and created a positive image of humanity. According to book The Human Potential for Peace, “A study of over 2,000 television programs aired between 1973 and 1993 on major networks in the United States found that more than 60 percent featured violence and over 50 percent of the leading characters in these shows were involved in violence.” The author concludes that this overrepresentation in violence can contribute to an unrealistic picture of the world.

The news is also bombarded with aggressive actions; murder, rape, and abuse. With the headlines constantly screaming violence, it is no surprise that viewers are led to the false assumption that humans are innately violent Wars and terrorist attacks support this claim, but it is essential to note that, “The vast majority of people on the planet awake on a typical morning and live through a violence-free day - and this experience generally continues day after day.” While humans are portrayed as violent creatures, I live each day without inflicting violence on anyone else or being a witness of the violent acts of others. I know the majority of people in the world can say the same thing. This makes a positive statement for humanity. 

To add to the fire, the people society looks up to and admires are often these “pop-icons”, who occasionally partake in violent behavior. For instance, Chris Brown is a famous rap musician, who recently pled guilty to a domestic violence incident. We see these “idols” commit these horrible violent behaviors, and our image of the humanity becomes swayed from a peaceful nature to a violent one. The media clearly believes that humanity is innately violent and they use television and our “pop-icons” to reinforce it. 

Despite this negative entertainment world, I have a higher vision of humanity. This vision does not negate the fact that there are instances in which humans behave violently; however, it upholds the more positive and peaceful actions displayed in everyday life. Humans are a cooperative group, who over time have developed effective ways to resolve conflicts. Fry discusses his 5 major approaches to conflict management which include; avoidance, toleration, negotiation, self-redress, and settlement. We have developed these techniques because we desire to peacefully interact with each other. Humans cannot live alone, which is why we live as networks, communities, and societies. As the human-race, we communicate and cooperate with one another to bring about the best for ourselves, our neighbors, and our future. I view myself as one of those individuals that strives to live with others in harmony. Sometimes, I get upset and frustrated; however, I do not believe it is my innate nature to violently attack another human. Maybe we were born that way, but I believe that as we grow and understand what society is really about, we do not want to harm our neighbors. We create our own evolution in the time we have here on Earth. As Fry states, “Conflict is an inevitable feature of social life, but clearly physical aggression is not the only option for dealing with conflict.” There is a hope for peaceful resolution. 

JOURNAL 3

Nellie Gotebeski

Semptember 09, 2009

Moral Development

What kinds of differences in moral behavior do I notice between the sexes and among cultures in my student peers or in other groups? Are they deep differences (value differences) or shallow differences (differences in forms of value expression)? How do I compare with others?

In our Moral Development class, we were assigned to read a study carried out by Carol Gilligan. Gilligan studied under Kohlberg and was also a key member of his team. As we all know, Kohlberg created a six staged theory for moral reasoning based on responses to moral dilemmas. However, when the answers to Kohlberg’s test were scored, men continued to score at a higher moral reasoning level than women. In several study’s, women were excluded from the sample, and therefore, were not incorporated into the theories themselves. Gilligan believed that because women were excluded from moral reasoning studies and because the performance on the test differed according to gender, there could possibly be two modes of moral reasoning; one for men and one for women. She proposed two different developmental trajectories. Gilligan claimed that males organized social relationships into a hierarchical order and subscribe to a morality of rights and females value interpersonal connectedness, care, sensitivity, and responsibility to people. This would explain why women scored poorly on Kohlberg’s scale which was based on logic and justice. Gilligan claims that women base their moral reasoning on “care” and, therefore, go through a different set of stages. 

Is there a different mode of reasoning between men and women? I decided to investigate this issue by viewing the moral behavior of my friends. I observed different behavior in the way that men and women react to someone upset. When a friend is clearly upset, my girl friends tend to hug that person and allow them cry. They ask questions and try to figure out what is wrong. On the other hand, my guy friends also notice that their friend is sad, but take a different approach to consolation (possibly asking them to watch a game or hang out with other friends). After viewing these behaviors, it is still very difficult to decide if moral reasoning effected their moral behavior. It is even more difficult to decide if a different mode of moral reasoning was implemented by men and women. It appears that both could have surfaced from “care” or “justice.” By understanding that their sad friend belonged to a social group, and attempting to console their friend, the individual could have been motivated by caring for someone who was sad and felt connectedness to them. On the other hand, the same individual could have acted based on their belief that it is simply unjust for someone to be sad without intervening to console them. In sum, I observed the behaviors of men and women to be similar. Although their reasoning may be different, both were encouraged to act in situations they deemed appropriate. It is promising to see such morally aware students here at Notre Dame!

Cultural differences were a bit more difficult to observe, because I often missed the moral dilemmas that were presented to my friends from different cultural backgrounds. However, I spent a semester in Santiago, Chile and it was very interesting to think back upon the moral behavior of Chileans and compare their behavior to Americans. I must note that I lived in a very large city, which could have also played a part in the moral behavior that took place or didn’t take place. I noticed that Chileans were very inclined to act in a positive moral way with issues that involved their family, even trivial issues that as Americans we would not deem noteworthy of help. However, moral behavior directed toward a stranger was extremely rare. I went to a fútbol game, and after the game my friends and I were walking when all of a sudden, a man snatched my friend’s purse from her arm. We both screamed for help, but nobody intervened. When I think back on this issue, the cultural differences played a big role; however, I also thought that men should take more responsibility for this moral dilemma because they would be more capable of chasing the robber down. This stirred another intriguing question in my mind: Does our capabilities for moral behavior influence our moral reasoning or vice versa? 

Finally, when I compare my moral reasoning to others, it probably fits into a mix of those stages guided by “justice” and those stages guided by “care.” Gilligan also claimed that both men and women use “care” and “justice” reasoning to guide moral behavior. 

JOURNAL 2

Nellie Gotebeski 

August 29, 2009

Moral Development

What kind of reasons do I see others use and do I use when deciding how to cooperate with others? Give examples. What kinds of conventional and personal domain distinctions do I see people make? How can I improve my moral reasoning capabilities?

From our study of Piaget, we can confirm that his research created revolutionary theories in developmental psychology. His research also led to interesting findings in the area of moral development. Piaget believed in two moral orientations, which he referred to as heteronomous morality (morality of constraint) and autonomous morality (morality of cooperation). The heteronomous morality claims that as young children we typically have an understanding of morality as obedience to authority. We don’t believe in the flexibility of rules and wrongness is always followed by punishment. On the other hand, the morality of cooperation claims that as you work with your peers you develop morality. When we are interacting with our peers, we are forced to negotiate rules, be aware of different viewpoints, and change rules if it is necessary. This type or morality is specifically related to the concern for the welfare of others. 

Morality of cooperation takes place in a variety of environments; for example, the classroom, the school yard, and our very own houses. Although this cooperation is evident in school-aged children, it is also exhibited in the behavior of the majority of adults. For example, in class we were given a ball and told to create a game and play it three times. This activity exhibited the need to cooperate with others and quickly establish rules to a game. The rules obviously were guidelines for basic moral behavior and penalties were issued for violation of these rules. Basic rules such as no throwing the ball overhand were penalized, but more than that moral issues like cheating could also be addressed. When deciding how to cooperate with others, the big issue taken into account is fairness and the welfare of others. In my opinion, these are the two issues that come to mind in simple forms of cooperation. This year I live in a house with several girls, and therefore, we must each do our part to keep the house clean. This cooperation involved creating a chore chart and rotating our names through the list of chores. When working on the chore chart, we each had different reasons to make sure this process was carried out effectively. I was particularly interested in fairness. I wanted to make sure that each girl in the house had a responsibility, carried it out, and eventually rotated to a different chore each week. The bigger tasks (such as cleaning the kitchen) had more girls assigned to it, because we thought this was a fair way to approach the tasks. Other girls in the house were more concerned with the punishments for broken rules. Their reasoning remained jointed with the idea of enforcing a punishment will keep the process in movement. They believed that if the chore was not carried out for that week the girl responsible for this should have to double up on chores the following week. Therefore, when cooperating with others they reasoned the most important way to do this was establishing strict rules and enforcing them accordingly. Finally, some of the girls believed that cooperation should include the welfare of others. They believed that each month we should change how we assign and carryout chores because for some girls certain methods are more stressful than others. These girls believed that the welfare of others was a top priority and should be fully addressed. For instance, making everyone do a chore on Sundays is a difficult way to carryout the task, because some girls are dedicated to activities on Sunday, burry themselves in the library, or attend church. In sum, I believe that each of these three reasons (fairness, enforcing rules, and the welfare of others) are very important issues and should be addressed when cooperating with others. 

Another topic we addressed in class was the distinction between conventional and moral domains. We read Nucci’s article which directly addressed this issue. Nucci’s research claimed that moral issues were viewed to be independent of the existence of social norms and generalizable to other cultures and societies. Social Conventions are rules within the social system where the rule was formed. Moral issues are mostly concerned with the unfair or harm that actions would cause others and conventional issues are more based on the expectations of authority. Nucci illustrated this distinction with his research into religion. I can also see people make the distinction in that area. For example, I see many of my friends gobble up a slice of pizza before mass, even though Church authority orders Catholics to fast before communion. Other similar dilemmas include dress-codes ordered by specific societies. Other conventional laws include the law banning chewing gum in Singapore. To many Americans, this law is viewed as completely ridiculous and is not deemed morally wrong to break. According to our reasoning, chewing gum does not directly harm or impact the welfare of others and is just a conventional rule in Singapore to keep the country clean. 

I believe moral reasoning can improve with practice and patience. Cooperating with others and listening to their individual process of moral reasoning is a great start to improvement. To excel in moral reasoning an individual needs experience and understanding. The individual should carefully talk about their moral dilemmas and then try to implement what they learned to other moral conflicts in the future.