18 Jan Write about two to three solid

PHI115 ETHICS

Homework 7

Your reading for this week is a selection from Gilligan’s “In A Different Voice.” Part of what she is up to there is getting us to question what was then, and to a large extent still is, a dominant hierarchy of moral thought. That hierarchy was theorized by Lawrence Kohlberg. I reproduce it below (as it appears in Wikipedia’s entry on Lawrence):

Level 1 (Pre-Conventional)

1. Obedience and punishment orientation

( How can I avoid punishment?)

2. Self-interest orientation

( What’s in it for me?)

( Paying for a benefit)

Level 2 (Conventional)

3. Interpersonal accord and conformity

( Social norms)

( The good boy/girl attitude)

4. Authority and social-order maintaining orientation

( Law and order morality)

Level 3 (Post-Conventional)

5. Social contract orientation

6. Universal ethical principles

( Principled conscience)

This way of rank-ordering different strategies for handling moral questions doesn’t appear all that problematic at first glance. It doesn’t even mention women, people of color, different socioeconomic classes, nothing. It’s simply saying what kinds of reasoning are more sophisticated and developed that others.

But…

When combined with sexist attitudes about women (or people of color, or…), then we run into problems. Why? Because women’s answers to questions about moral dilemmas, seemed to suggest that they were inferior to men in terms of moral reasoning (assuming the evidence was gathered well and the interpretation of the data was solid, both of which are big assumptions). At similar levels of physical/social development, females seem to be lagging behind males, so the data suggested.

Enter Gilligan. Instead of questioning the data, as many have, she questions the very structure used to interpret it. What if Kohlberg is wrong? What if the ways females think is not inferior to the ways males think about morality. What if they are different, but equal, approaches, emphasizing different things?

Your task for this assignment is to answer the Heinz dilemma from our own text in your own words. What would you do? Second, where do you think your answer would rank on Kohlberg’s scale? Last, do you agree? Why or why not?

I’m imagining these questions as a fun way to apply the theory. I’m not worried so much about whether you answer the Heinz dilemma ly or inly. That is beside the point. The idea is to try to evaluate your own answer to it. So, be honest, but focus your efforts on applying the scale and determining whether and why you agree or disagree with where you ended up on it.

Specifics:

Write about two to three solid paragraphs in standard written English.

Proofread for typos, obvious grammatical errors (sentence fragments, etc.).

Do NOT write in the comment field. Attach a file of the appropriate type or click “Write Submission” and type there.

Submissions will be analyzed using SafeAssign. No outside sources are allowed, beyond your own reading and the Wiki entry on Kohlberg, if you so choose to look at it (link below).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development