Psychology Essay: Morals.

After reading the material on moral development, at what stage do you see yourself? What did you learn? What did you learn from the material on "Understanding Unethical Behavior?"

Personally, I find uncovering the determinants of moral judgment and behavior fascinating in it's own right. When and how do people learn to distinguish between right and wrong? How do they learn to care for others and for themselves in relation to others?

Moral development involves establishing a moral or ethical outlook so a person can react responsibly. It involves both the intellect and mind to make judgments, but morals and ethics also are influenced by emotions, social and cultural circumstances, values, individual interests, and goals within the context of social cooperation.

As s/he progresses through the early years of life, a young person gradually develops patterns of thinking and behaving that is less selfish and more other-oriented. Kohlberg broke it down like so:

• Pre-Conventional Level: A child modifies his behavior based on the knowledge that misbehaving will lead to punishment.

• Conventional Level: Most adolescents behave according to an awareness of social roles and others’ expectations.

• Post-Conventional Level: Most adults become aware of individual opinions and values that may conflict with those of other individuals and of society in general. People understand the social contract, which leads them to behave in a manner that benefits society; universal ethical principles, or principled conscience, take precedence.

Beyond Post-Conventional Level:
A person may even clearly see that it is right and just to disobey a law in some cases [based on a notion of justice, a complex idea that develops with maturity and leads a person to do what is right even if doing so is inconvenient, difficult, or dangerous]. Most people never reach this stage; it is almost exclusively the domain of exceptional individuals who devote and even risk their lives for social justice.

I see myself at the Post-Conventional Level. Experiences with life haven't exactly led up to my 'even risk[ing my life] for social justice', but I aspire to be that person. Mayhaps, the time will come when I will prove, even to myself, how selfless and mature of a person I really am.

In my research of morals and unethical behavior, I found this in PsychWiki, and thought it rather fascinating:

Do some people lack morals [i.e., criminals]?

The short answer is no. Most who follow the social intuition model would say that all non-psychopathic people moralize, even racists [Gomberg 1990, Haidt 2001]. For example, people who commit genocide, warped as it may be, often justify their actions on moral grounds [i.e., protecting one's group, retaliating for past group injustice, or keeping their group pure]. People high in psychopathy may be the exception to this and research is currently underway to determine if this is indeed the case by seeing if psychopaths exhibit lower brain activations when given moral dilemmas.

Given the ubiquity of moral reasoning and the non-intuitive diversity of moral standards that can be derived from moral reasoning, it seems reasonable to conclude that racist attitudes would have a moral basis and therefore be susceptible to moral reasoning. Skitka, Bauman, and Sargis [2005] found that beliefs that lead to extreme interpersonal distancing are often linked to moral convictions. Some have even drawn parallels between racism and more universally accepted values such as patriotism [Gomberg, 1990].

Which leads me to the third part of the essay question, on understanding unethical behavior.

Consider the horrific phenomenon known as genocide, which has occurred in Nazi-occupied Europe, Stalin’s Soviet Union, the former Yugoslavia, and, more recently, in Rwanda and Darfur, Sudan. How could so many people participate in such inhumane acts?

During the Holocaust, human beings who were transported, harmed, or killed were often referred to as “pieces” or “merchandise” in memos. This is an example of using a euphemism, or a neutral word or term that covers up something negative or unpleasant, as a way to deny or avoid confronting an ethical question. They dehumanized the people they were harming, diminished the consequences of their unethical behavior, attributed blame for inflicting harm [i.e., 'following the orders' of a supervisor], and justified the genocide because it was for 'a higher cause'.