Moral Reasoning and Kohlbergs Moral Stages

Kohlberg's Moral Stages What would you do if confronted with this same dilemma? If I was confronted with this dilemma, I would tell the truth about my son and not let my wife take the blame. However, I would not do so out of higher moral principles but because I would tend to assume that law enforcement would likely figure out eventually what was the truth and then both my son and my wife might suffer severe consequences, instead of only my son, once the authorities were involved.

It is also worthy of note that the son might not be willing to allow his mother to take the blame, further complicating the issue when arguing with authorities. Although it may be difficult to gain legal assistance, the best that can be done is admit to nothing and to request legal aid from the U.S. embassy, although there may be some reluctance to help the son given that this is technically a drug crime.

Hopefully, the minimal nature of the offense will garner some sympathy from the U.S. government although it is unlikely to do so from the foreign authorities. Regardless, my ethical focus would be on protecting my son but doing so in a way that was effective and did not result in harm occurring to my innocent wife as well. Q2. At what level and which stage/s of Kohlberg's Moral Development would this dilemma go into? This scenario entertains virtually all of the levels of Kohlberg's Moral Development hierarchy.

On a very basic, first level, it could be argued that the son should have to suffer the consequences of his actions and be punished. On a secondary level, it could be argued that the son transgressed his duty to keep the needs of others in mind, namely his parents.

But on the third level of pleasing others -- although the mother may want to please her son, come forward, and take responsibility for the crime instead, the son clearly acted without thought of how his parents might react to his crime as well as the foreign country's officials. The fourth level of moral understanding of law and order might suggest that given the severity of the drug problem, a nation has the right to take a strong stance in opposition.

The fifth level argues for a more nuanced understanding of what constitutes the law. Simply because something is illegal does not mean that an extremely harsh punishment is always justified. After all, the code of Hammurabi holds that an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is moral, but we as a society have moved on and recognize that a certain amount of leeway must be given in regards to the proportion of the offense and even the age of the perpetrator.

On the highest, philosophical sixth level of abstraction, the idea of showing mercy would seem to be relevant in a universal cross-cultural context. Q3. This took place in another country. Do you believe that an individual's moral judgement should go beyond a country's laws? In the case of some offenses, such as human rights violations of free speech, certain moral principles transcend the laws of a nation. Laws that discriminate based upon race, gender, sexual orientation, or ethnicity are immoral. The laws allowing slavery in the U.S.

were immoral, so was the apartheid regime in South Africa. Although laws which regulate drug use may be reasonable, if the punishments are so excessive and severe (whether in the U.S. or abroad) this itself is a moral evil. For example, while we would all concede that speeding is wrong, most reasonable people would agree that depriving someone of his license if he was five or ten miles above the speed limit on the highway would be wrong, unless other reckless circumstances were involved like drunk driving.

For someone to lose his life or permanently lose his liberty because of a small amount of marijuana is similarly wrong. The risk to society for possession is relatively negligible and the potential contribution the individual could make to society is still great; the crime is not evidence that the individual is hurtful to other human beings or has committed a major infraction that should justify a loss of liberty or life. Q4.

Based on the dilemma, would your moral judgement be altered by your socioeconomic status (SES)? It should not be, although it is true that quite frequently socioeconomic status does affect drug case trial decisions in the United States. Someone who is poor is often viewed as committing a crime, even for simple possession, while someone who is wealthy is viewed as having an illness. In this instance, however, this law, however barbaric it might seem, seems to be uniformly applied against all persons, regardless of socioeconomic status.

In general, I believe that the socioeconomic status of an individual should have.