A Personal Account of an Ethical Dilemma, Term Paper Example

Morality and ethics are two terms which are versatile in their ability to be used synonymously. However, they can also be defined and distinguished separately based upon an individual and his or her belief systems. The debate of morality and ethics as ideals that guide actions taken by individuals, groups or societies is not at all tempered and not one which necessarily has right or wrong answers. While morality is a term that can be used to define a set of ideas of the nature between good and evil for people with an established religious belief system, so it can also be used as a general lifestyle guideline. Ethics often is associated with a general form of procedural conduct, independent of specific events that trigger explicit reactions. With the variances in definitions of both these terms, determining how a person is influenced can be contingent on either taught or learned behaviors. How a person reacted to a meaningful event can be broken down through Kohlberg’s six stages of moral development and the Defining Issues Test (DIT). These help to understand the role that past experiences play when someone interprets a stimulus as a threat or challenge to their understanding of morality and ethics.

Every person has an extremely unique history of encounters and situations which may have challenged what they held to be ethically and morally true. In the United States, a lot of the development of a person’s moral framework is testing during his or her adolescent and teenage years. With the dynamics of attitudes changing between childhood and adulthood, a lot of taught and learned behaviors shape themselves specifically to the individual. In high schools and college across the country, peer pressure is a nationally acknowledged concept which either gives way to a shift in a person’s belief system or acts as solidification and verification of their preexisting beliefs.

For me, it was during my early college years that I was repeatedly confronted and also shaped by various situations in which I found myself as a result of my social environment. At the beginning of college, I saw the influence of alcohol and the lifestyle that pervaded the university dormitories.  While I was eager to partake in the social festivities that brought freshmen together in the camaraderie of finally being in college, I was also very conscientious of behaviors and consequences through taught and learned experience. Once of the most significant challenges that I experienced which truly tested the mettle of my own personal moral and ethical belief system was at a university party.  At the end of what was a very fun and socially invigorating night, I was offered a ride home from someone who was far more inebriated than I even knew was possible.

There is not an immediate reason I can necessarily list as to why I did and said what I did on that night. However, to help me find some answers, I can break down my inner turmoil and actions of that night through Kohlberg’s six stages of moral development. Lawrence Kohlberg was a psychologist and scholar who is renowned for the six stages of moral development that he asserted were a part of every person’s innate framework. Developed as a result of his study of Piaget’s previous assertion of two various stages of moral development, Kohlberg expounded upon these with further study of his own.  Kohlberg’s six stages are as follows: obedience and punishment orientation, individualism and exchange, good interpersonal relationships, maintaining the social order, social contract and individual rights, and universal principles. [1]

Since Kohlberg’s assertion of there being six stages of moral development, another tool has been recognized which further promotes the study of the latter half of Kohlberg’s stages called the Defining Issues Test (DIT). The DIT measures the intuitive and unspoken aspects of moral development, usually on a more subconscious level resulting from experience as opposed to learning. This measurement of unconscious thought process in moral development counters consciously recalling taught lessons for help in determining suitable behaviors for various situations. Comparatively, another study devised to calculate moral development is called the Moral Judgment Interview. In this type of assessment, a person is required to recount in their own words their level of understanding in an attempt to discern their highest level of moral awareness. Throughout the study of the DIT and moral development, it has been argued to be a more accurate gauge than actually having a person clarify their morals verbally. The ability to measure the DIT is based on a concept of schemas, which are preexisting observances based upon an individual’s experience and the lessons he or she (unconsciously) learned from them. Taking these into consideration as well as Kohlberg’s stages of development can possibly help explain the rationale behind my behavior.

My ethics and values are usually tailored to specific points of interest. I consider myself a religious person although this background only in part plays to how I see myself and what I see my role in society to be.  I consider myself to be open minded in regards to human rights and various social issues.  I counter that with a semi-conservative fiscal agenda when it comes to my personal finances. I abide by the rule that it is my duty to treat people as I would be treated. This methodology in my approach to life is a combination of both learned and preexisting concepts whose origins I cannot necessarily justify.  I understand the risks of drinking and driving because that is what I was taught in school.  I also understand the risks of drinking and driving because I am personally familiar with people who have partaken in this illicit activity. I have experienced great loss through someone’s death because they were hit and killed upon impact by a drunk driver.  I have also seen people lose themselves and their pristine criminal records after being intoxicated and then getting in a car and driving away.

In this particular dilemma, my behavior and reasoning can be justified throughout the third and fourth stages but that is not the case with Kohlberg’s other four.  His first stage of moral development is obedience and punishment orientation.  This asserts that a person will think about the consequence of a decision and how it will affect themselves.  While I did not hold my well being above anyone else’s, the concern for my own personal safety was very much on my mind.  I had no inclination to get in a car with someone who could either harm me or potentially be the cause of my death.  Also, I had never previously partaken in this type of behavior, and I had no precedence as to what trouble may or may not have arisen.  Concern for legal punishment or a verbal berating was not a mitigating factor.  Since I had never done it before, I had no basis of knowledge for what would happen if I were to be caught and punished.

The second stage, individualism and exchange, is essentially verification of the precedence of the individual’s importance.  It emphasizes a quid pro quo mentality, specifically tailored to determining what is in the best interest of the individual.  When I determined that not only was I not going to get into the car with this incredibly intoxicated person but also was going to make it impossible for them to do so, the precedence of my safety above all else was not my only motivation.

Stage 5, social contract driven, also is not one of the prominent factors in my decision making process. This stage alleges that laws are essentially no more than social contracts.  In this, the greater good of the people can necessitate action for the overriding of various laws through agreement and compromise.  Because I believed that the laws against drunk driving were already successful advocates for the greater good, the need to override them was nonexistent.

The sixth and final stage of Kohlberg’s six stages of moral development is universal principles.  In this stage, a person’s behavior reflects a belief that laws are valid insofar as they are grounded in integrity.  Similar to stage 5 in its advocacy for justice and social welfare, there was nothing in my particular situation that warranted the need to override the laws that were currently in place.  The laws and punishments of drinking and driving are specifically designed to protect the drivers themselves and other people from becoming victims of drunk drivers.  The punishments are designed to specifically deter repeat offenses in continuation of their mission to protect the safety of the community.  I did not, and do not, feel that these are laws that debase the greater good.

Stages three and four are generally the two stages that most appropriately apply to how I conducted myself in this situation.  The third stage, good interpersonal relationships, is largely influential in how I live my life and how I thought through this particular quandary. It alleges that people look to fulfill societal roles that identify whether or not they are ‘good’ or ‘bad’. Because I come from a religious background, I do feel that my behavior is a reflection of my religion and I always try to act accordingly. I also feel that I am a reflection of my upbringing.  If I were to walk away from the car without giving any regard to the person who was going to get in and drive anyway, how would that have made me look?  I have no desire to be known as a person who holds only his or her own safety to par; I am accountable for other people when they cannot be accountable for themselves.

Stage four is maintaining the social order. I am a law abiding citizen, and I value the role of the legal system to maintain society standards. I fully advocate a system which ensures the safety of all people whether it is for protecting the greater good or even protecting individuals from themselves.  Because drinking and driving is illegal, it was not my wish for someone else to be getting in a car who was beyond drunk subsequently disobeying the law.  Without rules, laws, and regulations the state of society and the good of the public are consistently compromised.  In my mind’s eye, maybe I could assist in the prevention of future behavior by showing my inclination to uphold the law and also be helping hold someone else accountable to the legality of their actions.

With stages three and four, the DIT would be a successful gauge of my behavior.  Although, by writing my own personal account I am in line with having taken a approach more similar to the Moral Judgment Interview. If the DIT measures actions based on experience on a subconscious level, this type of test probably would yield more answers than those which I am consciously providing in my writing. The assessment gives credence to the widely held belief that while the MJI is effective, the DIT probes deeper into behavior rationale through its subconscious explanation.

The reasoning behind why the first and second stages had no base of influence has to do with learned behaviors.  Regarding the first stage, I was always taught that drinking and driving was bad and as a result, I never took part in anything of that nature to have ever been punished by it. With the second stage, my religion has always taught me that I am no better or worse than someone else.  As a result, my priorities always need to extend outside of concern for my own well being and include the consideration of others.  This learned behavior is also what impacted the relevance of stage three into my driving dilemma.  However, with stages four, five and six, past experience dictated its relevance in the drunk-driving conundrum that I was facing.  I have seen the success of maintaining social order.  Past offenders of drunk driving, whom I have known, have been deterred from repeating these dangerous behaviors.  As a result, public safety has been increased.  Because I have known people who have been punished as drunk drivers and subsequently learned form these lessons, I saw the sense in being an advocate of these particular rules.  As a result, this negated the need for the proposition to revise certain laws (stage 5’s social contracts) or override the laws for the benefit of the greater good all together (stage 6).

Various situations for different people are going to determine which stages of Kohlberg’s six stages of moral development are relevant to the situation at hand.  Some of these might have all played a part in how a person reacted to a particular stimulus.  Or, like my situation, only a few might be remotely relevant determinants of behavior.  A person’s definition of morality and ethics and the precedence that people let them take in their lives is almost immeasurable.  The levels of learning a person has attained or why a person interprets a situation a certain way are incredibly diverse.  By doing research and expounding upon Piaget’s original two stage theory, Kohlberg has at least helped provide a significant insight into how stimuli affect behaviors and decisions.

Works Cited

Bock, T. and Narvaez, D. Moral Schemas and Tacit Judgment or How the Defining Issues Test is Supported by Cognitive Science. Journal of Moral Education. Vol. 31, No. 3. 3 Nov. 2002: 1-15.

Crain, W.C. Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development. Theories of Development. 1985: 118-136. http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/kohlberg.htm

Huitt, W. and Hummel, J. Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development. Educational Psychology Interactive. http://www.edpsychinteractive.org/topics/cogsys/piaget.html

Lawrence Kohlberg. http://psychology.jrank.org/pages/362/Lawrence-Kohlberg.html

Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development. Wikipedia. 17 Nov. 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg’s_stages_of_moral_development

[1] Crain, W.C. Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development. Theories of Development. 1986: 118-136.

http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/kohlberg.htm