ROBIN HOOD, KOHLBERG, AND COLLEGE STUDENTS An Investigation by Sarah Baker
MY QUESTIONS: Is there a correlation between one s choice of major and their stage of moral development using the structure laid out by Lawrence Kohlberg? By comparing Freshmen and Seniors, would there be an apparent influence from the UD Core?
THE PROCEDURE: Face-to-face interview (lasted about 5 min.) Gave student the intimidating Adult Consent Form Once signed, they got the moral dilemma and voice memo was turned on to record answers They gave answers/i asked clarification and definition questions as needed
THE PARTICIPANT POOL: FRESHMEN 5 biology VS. 3 biology SENIORS 4 math 3 math 4 politics 3 politics 2 theology 4 theology 15 total 12 total
OH IT S ONE OF THOSE ETHICAL DILEMMAS You are an eyewitness to a crime. A man has robbed a bank, but instead of keeping the money for himself, he donates it to a poor orphanage that can now afford to feed, clothe, and care for its children. You know who committed the crime. If you go to the authorities, there s a good chance that the money will return to the bank, leaving a lot of kids in need. What do you do? And why is your choice better than the alternative?
MY HYPOTHESIS: I think that students with majors that have spent more time studying moral and ethical dilemmas (like theology) will have more advanced reasoning. I also predict that Freshmen will tend to be in varying categories independent of their major.
KOHLBERG S CHART (& MY CRITERION): 1: Heteronomous Morality (Preconventional) 2: Individualism Instrumental Purpose, Exchange (Preconventional) 3: Mutual interpersonal expectations, relationships, & interpersonal conformity (Conventional) What is right? -avoiding breaking rules backed by punishment -obedience for own sake or to avoid physical damage -following rules when it s in immediate interest -acting to meet own interests and letting others do the same -right is what is fair/equal exchange/deal/agreement -living up to expectations of those close to you -being good depends on good motives & concern for others Reasons for doing right -avoid punishment -superior power of authorities -to serve own needs/ interests -also recognize that others have own interests -need to be good person in own eyes and others -Golden rule -desire to maintain rules and authority which supper Power, F. Clark, Ann Higgins, and Lawrence Kohlberg. Lawrence Kohlberg s Approach to Moral Education. Columbia University Press, 1989. pg. 8-9
CONT.: 4: Social systems & Conscience (Conventional) 5: Social Contract, or Utility & Individual Rights (Post-conventional) 6: Universal Ethical Principles (Post-conventional) What is right? Reasons for doing right -Fulfilling the actual duties to which one has agreed -Laws are to be upheld except in extreme cases where they conflict with other social dues -Right is contributing to society -To keep institution going as whole -Avoid breakdown of system - If everyone did it -Conscience -Awareness of varying values and opinions (most are relative) -Relative rules should often be upheld because of social contract -Are non-relative values -Obligation to law bc of social contract, and for the protection of all indiv. rights -Feeling of contractual commitment -Law/duty based on rational calculation of overall utility -Self-chosen ethical principles -Particular laws often valid bc they rest on principles -If law violates principles -Belief as rational person in the validity of universal moral principles -Sense of personal commitment to them Power, F. Clark, Ann Higgins, and Lawrence Kohlberg. Lawrence Kohlberg s Approach to Moral Education. Columbia University Press, 1989. pg. 8-9
THE RESULTS WHICH ARE REALLY JUST MORE QUESTIONS: Analyzing the answers using the structure of the Kohlberg stage theory was sometimes inadequate. Why? -answers often contained various stages within them -answers often had reasoning outside of the possibilities within Kohlberg s framework
AN EXAMPLE OF THE DILEMMA WITH THE DILEMMA I d turn the person in. First off, he had no right to take the money. And he s taking it from a bank, and however he did it, he put them in harm s way (5). So he committed something that was morally wrong. Money goes back to the bank so be it. What if it was my money? What if it was someone else s money? (2)What if they lose everything (3) because this man decided to take however much money? They re no longer financially stable. What he s doing you can t rob people and expect anything good to come out of it. It d be different if it was a monarchy or a dictatorship, then taking the money and giving it to the poor would be the right thing to do. not only because stealing is wrong how it s wrong, if it s a dictator, he s controlling money flow, food flow. We have the right as a people in our own basic human rights to pursue right, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. (4) In that sense, that happiness comes from what we want. And in the U.S. (5), it s morally wrong to steal I do care that money is being taken from the economic system forcibly and being thrown into another once that money is all used up, where is the money flow going to go? What s going to happen when the money is all used up? You re going to steal more? If you wanted to donate money, you d start a fund peace corps, charities, organizations It s the full circle of self preservation, we can help ourselves (2) and then help others (3). So with that being said, I d turn him in. You re screwing the economic system where the money is not going back into the system. You d have to keep stealing. The person is stupid.
SO WHERE TO GO WITH THIS: We ll turn back to Kohlberg and his critics: J.R. Rest (1979): problem with claiming that stages are distinct and progressive in practice, it seems that reasoning about right and wrong depends more upon the situation than upon general rules; found that some teens regressed Gilligan (1977): justice as most fundamental principle as opposed to care http://www.simplypsychology.org/kohlberg.html
THE QUESTION REMAINED DID THE DATA SUGGEST A CORRELATION?
Note: 3 biology and 4 theology interviewed SENIOR BIOLOGY SENIOR THEOLOGY Values: relative to individual Political: private property Religious: conscience alongside Church s teaching ends don't justify means depends upon particulars of situation Values: honesty Norms of Community: that s what you do Political: broke law private property opportunity for fundraising/ donating x2 ends don t justify means x2 depends upon particulars of situation
SENIOR POLITICS DATA: #2: I d tell the authorities the information it should be a governmental responsibility and not the responsibility of a private individual. In robbing the bank, the man had a chance of hurting somebody for sentencing #3: I was really sympathetic to Robin Hood in general. It s a sin of omission but I probably wouldn't say anything. It s doing good, it s reaching an end goal. Getting things done it gets tangled up in bureaucracy, or there isn't communication between people, or there isn't a way to facilitate. It s more direct. Even when same concepts were used, different conclusions were sometimes drawn http://www.simplypsychology.org/kohlberg.html
WHILE RESULTS WERE LARGELY INDEPENDENT OF MAJORS, THERE WAS QUITE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FRESHMEN & SENIORS
DATA COMPARING FINAL ANSWER: Freshmen Seniors 67% 33% 31% 8% 62% ~Went to authorities ~Said nothing ~Answer depends on details
Note: 3 seniors and 4 freshmen interviewed SENIOR MATH FRESHMEN MATH Values: relative to individual opportunity for fundraising ends don't justify means various negative indirect consequences depends upon particulars x2 part. of what kind of government Values: people over institutions relative to individual determined by faith as background Political: worse crime happens obligation to police Authority: more moral (formed by parents) end goal is good x2 greater need
A FEW TRENDS IN FRESHMEN DATA: ends not justifying means (mentioned by 7 fresh) vs. end goal (mentioned by 4 seniors) hit on banks (3 fresh., no seniors) kids in need more important than people who already have, a bank that already has money (fresh. math) moral right often was in conflict with political/legal right probably turn a blind eye technically maybe the correct moral decision would be to report FM two kinds of right, moral right and law right and there s no middle ground which makes this problem so difficult.. FM
DATA SUGGESTED: -MORAL REASONING IS INDEPENDENT OF ONE S MAJOR -M.R. STILL SEEMS TO BE INFLUENCED BY EDUCATION &/OR AGE (GOOD SIGN FOR THE CORE)
IN A PERFECT WORLD, I WOULD VE Interviewed fewer majors Asked more follow-up questions and possibly definition questions Compared gender Researched more responses to Kohlberg s stage theory Tried to find a more systematic way of organizing data
THE END