JOURNAL 8

Nellie Gotebeski

October 27, 2009

Moral Development

What kinds of moral identities do I see around me? Do I know any moral exemplars? What are they like?

As a college student, I see many different moral identities at Notre Dame. One aspect of moral identity is the mergence of self goals with moral goals. Dedication to eliminating chauvinistic attitudes that repress women, inspiration to sustain energy, and motivation to bring $5 foot-longs to Lafortune’s Subway are examples of moral goals on Notre Dame’s campus. The chance that these goals will be reached depends on whether they are merged with personal goals. Some people create moral goals, but have no aspiration to fulfill them. Those who accomplish their moral goals usually have aligned these goals with their personal goals. 

Another aspect of moral identity is a sense of moral responsibility. On campus, there are some students who can walk by a homeless person in South Bend, without feeling responsible to do something to reduce poverty. Other students will have what I call a “short-term desire” to make a change and will rush to their local food drive to volunteer a few hours. And few will be greatly affected by this social influence and will remain motivated for a lifetime. Lastly, our accessibility to moral schemas is a big indicator of our moral identities. Those who find it easy to access moral schemas and apply them to everyday life, are more likely to achieve moral goals than those who have trouble accessing them.

Jeff, a student at Notre Dame, is a great example of a moral exemplar. As a sophomore, Jeff traveled to Africa and studied HIV/AIDS with a team of doctors. He knew this research experience would look great on his transcript for medical school and above all, he was very excited about enjoying an experience in a different country. Jeff became very interested in the AID epidemic and was deeply distraught about the poverty he witnessed in Africa. After he returned to the United States, he wrote a paper about Aids-related stigma and became motivated to find a solution to this problem. Furthermore, Jeff decided to take action about the injustice he saw occurring in a continent thousands of miles away. He decided to start a nonprofit organization with the goals of reducing poverty in Africa and decreasing the number of people infected by HIV/AIDS. 

A few summers ago, I decided to participate in a Summer Service Projects associated with his foundation. During that summer, we traveled to various parts of South Africa and provided food and school supplies to the less fortunate. We also purchased and revamped a RV to be used for a medical outpatient testing vehicle. The vehicle allowed the nurses to provide an HIV testing facility to communities outside of Johannesburg. The vehicle was an improvement to the tents the nurses originally used and the vehicle’s mobility allowed more people to get tested. Since this trip, the foundation has continued to provide aid to Africa. The organization raised enough money to build several schools in Kenya and is in the process of raising money to build health clinics. 

In many ways, Jeff is the moral exemplar that Colby and Damon describe in their article “The Development of Extraordinary Moral Commitment.” Jeff’s social influence has guided his morality. He decided to attend Notre Dame with aspirations to become a doctor. He then decided to go to Africa to make himself more marketable for med schools. However, in Africa he underwent a goal transformation. After returning to the United States, he abandoned his Pre-medicine major and formed an organization dedicated to improving lives in Africa. This interaction of person and context led to his goal transformation and his moral dedication. His personal goals became closely aligned with his moral goals, which is a critical characteristic of a moral exemplar. As Colby and Damon stated, “The exemplars’ moral concerns and commitments are continuous with most people’s moral concerns and commitments but greater in degree.” 

Jeff’s moral concern is far beyond the norm. He believes moral action is not a choice, but the only option. His moral schemas are not limited to his volunteer work in Africa, but extend to other areas of the world. Jeff applies his moral schemes to everyday life situations and consequently, he is aware of the injustices occurring around him. He aspires to fulfill his moral responsibility, and takes this responsibility to the maximum. Jeff is very certain about what he wants to accomplish, but he remains open to a new goal transformation that could occur at any point in his life. He is aware of his moral responsibility and has a strong work ethic devoted to fulfilling it. He is very optimistic about the future and his positive attitude is contagious to those around him. 

JOURNAL 7

Nellie Gotebeski

October 13, 2009

Moral Development

If my culture has taught me to believe one thing (humans are violent and war is inevitable), can I change to the opposing view (humans are peaceful and war is preventable)? What would it mean to hold the second view? How might the society change?

In The Human Potential for Peace, Fry discussed the ability of a peaceful culture to become violent and a violent culture to become peaceful. The flexibility and changeability of peaceful and violent statuses can impact the way we view human nature. To support this statement that societies can change, we can refer to history data. Sweden is a great example to prove the transition from a violent to a peaceful society. During the time of the Vikings, Sweden was considered a violent and bloodthirsty culture. However, today Sweden is a peaceful society with very view instances of violence. If societies can change their behavior from violence to peace, I believe it is very likely for individuals to change their beliefs about this issue. Over the past several years, the mass media has influenced our view point by showing humans behaving violently and emphasizing the inevitability of war. This viewpoint has become ingrained in our own cultural beliefs and has led to “group think.” However, humans are capable of moving away from this rigid mold and should strive to break the mold instead of remaining stuck in a pessimistic outlook on life. 

In history, we can find several examples to support the ability of society to change their belief systems. For example, we once believed the world was flat and that was slavery was justifiable, but we were able to move away from these beliefs once we held an open mind and explored the world for ourselves. We can become our own investigators of truth. Once we begin searching for answers, we can find several instances of peaceful societies and find the evidence to support the ability of societies to transition toward peace.

Once we accept the belief about the peaceful nature of humans and the preventability of war, we must then accept the possibility of a more peaceful world. This possibility will have numerous implications at the individual level and at the national level. For example, we can no longer use excuses to justify our violent actions or the actions of others. We no longer can say, “That's just human nature” after someone commits an act of violence and when deciding whether to enter a war, we can no longer claim, “There has always been war and there always will be war.” We are forced to consider alternatives. We must acknowledge the more peaceful side of humanity and should take into our own hands the human potential for peace. We should search for possible solutions and more ways to achieve peace, because violence and war are no longer acceptable alternatives. 

Using the evidence from the societies that have changed from violent to peaceful, we can develop our own process towards peace. These societies can act as models for our own culture. When we examine Sweden’s success, we come across a possible method to change a society. Sweden guarantees every mother three years of maternity leave to care for their newborn baby. This is essential for the child because there is evidence to support that the additional care during this key period of development will have a positive impact on their behavior later in life. Psychologists stress the importance of early childhood development. Another possibility to achieve world peace, mentioned in Fry’s book, is the application of judicial principles at a nationwide level. This will force cultures to move away from global self-redress and become more oriented toward more peaceful ways to resolve conflicts. Fry discusses the five approaches to conflict management, which include: negotiation, toleration, settlement, mediation, and adjudication. When we accept the belief that humans are peaceful and war is inevitable, we must begin to practice these approaches to conflict management and work toward a more peaceful society. One of the issues Fry believes influences violence is social organization. The United States is, without a doubt, a state level society with a complex government and divisions between classes. What can we do as a complex society? We can start by accepting the belief that humans are peaceful and deny war as a method to resolve conflicts. We can find other more peaceful alternatives to resolve conflicts and enforce this peaceful way of life in our own culture. 

JOURNAL 6

Nellie Gotebeski

October 6, 2009

Moral Development

Do I see people making moral judgments based on emotion or reason? How about people who act immorally? How about myself when I have acted immorally?

In his studies, Haidt found that, “Affective reactions to the stories were better predictors of their moral judgments than were their claims about harmful consequences.” This argument tends to side towards the belief that people make moral judgments based on emotions; however, there is other psychological evidence that supports that our moral judgments are based on reason.

Thus, the debate continues: What drives our moral judgments? Emotion or reason? Haidt proposes emotion as the powerful force driving actual behavior. He states that there is a strong link between moral emotions and moral action. This link is illustrated in the behavior of psychopaths. Psychopaths can perform atrocities, but they simply do not care about the consequences. They do not have an emotional reaction to the circumstances or care about the consequences of their behavior. 

I proposed the debate question to my roommates and found a mixed array of responses. The majority of my roommates sided with Haidt and believed that their moral judgments were based on emotions. However, after they described their moral judgment process, it appeared that reason was also used to decide. Perhaps, they just decided to side with their emotions at the end of the reasoning process. For example, I observed one of my roommates fighting with her boyfriend on the phone. She hung up and then called him back a few minutes later and yelled at him again. In between the two calls, she was debating whether she should yell  at him more or wait and talk to him in person. She briefly worked through a list of pro’s and con’s and against the advice from her other roommates, she decided to act on her emotions. Therefore, we may go through a process of reasoning, and ultimately decide to favor our emotions, even if we know that it will not lead to moral behavior. 

At the end of my intuitions journal, I stated that people who made moral decisions tended to defend their moral judgment used to make the decisions, while those who acted immorally regarded their actions as impulsive. In the same way, when we act morally, we are more likely to accredit our well-thought-out reasoning process, that apparently overpowered our emotions. When I recall my own immoral decisions, I too believe that my emotions “got the best of me” and led to this decision. Thus, when my roommates say they act on their emotions, they may only be including their immoral behavior. However, it is important to note that while emotions can cause immoral behavior, this is not always the case.

Haidt purposes  another factor that may contribute to moral judgment. He describes the weak link that exists between moral reasoning and moral action. Haidt determines that there must be some other factor involved in this equation. He alludes to Mischel’s study, which presented a “hot” and “cold” system and described this other factor, which he described as intelligence. The “hot” system is responsible for quick emotional processing and uses the amygdala-based memory part of the brain. He claims that the “cool” system is specialized for complex spatiotemporal and episodic representation and thought. In time, we can train the “cool” system to block the impulsiveness of the “hot” system. For instance, the author sites an example, in which children initially desires the immediate small reward (one marshmallow), but eventually, they are able to resist the temptation in favor of a later, bigger reward (two marshmallows). Therefore, “The integration of the cool system into this process composes the essential feature of emotional intelligence.” Using this research, he claims that the relationship between moral reasoning ability and moral behavior is weak and inconsistent once intelligence is not an element. 

I believe that intelligence is a very important aspect of our moral judgment. I wanted to examine the possibility of mixing reason, emotion, and intelligence to develop a moral judgment process. I recalled that at the end of our last Moral Development class, we began talking about the distinction between naïve intuitions and well-educated intuitions (expertise). Well-educated intuitions includes at some level reasoning and instinct. I tried to apply this definition to the current debate and finally arrived at the term “well-educated emotional-reasoning.” I believe tis concept can apply to several of my own moral decisions. I believe I incorporated all three factors into the moral judgment process. Therefore, the answer to the debate may not be one or the other, but a systematic unification of all three factors.