Meni Koslowsky is Professor of Psychology at Bar-Ilan University, focusing on organizational behavior, the stress-strain relationship, and interpersonal relations. Meni has written more than 100 articles, authored and edited five books, and has presented at nearly 100 international meetings over the years. He heads the academic council of Emunah-Efrata College in Jerusalem.
There are many issues confronting modern man that were previously unimaginable. Given the new, as well as old, ethical and moral challenges that we face in our daily lives, it would seem more critical than ever for an educational system to provide a proper framework for tackling the problems that result. It is obviously not only the responsibility of the school to teach the proper behavior, the parents and the societal/religio/cultural environment also play salient role, yet our focus here will be on the former.
In order to teach for moral/ethical behavior, it would behoove us to identify exactly what we are referring to. On a macro perspective, contemporary issues include embryonic stem cell research, protecting individual privacy rights vs. maintaining national security, and non-traditional unions between two people. One issue particularly close to the Israeli scene, though by no means exclusive to it, is how best to protect a country from terrorist attacks – may one shoot at a terrorist who is hiding behind a civilian or in a building containing innocent people? Is a simple cost-benefit analysis enough to justify taking innocent lives in order to save many more in the future?
On the micro/educational perspective, parents and educators must deal with mundane problems that are part and parcel of growing up today. For example, can cheating (including downloading someone else’s work from the Internet and pretending it to be your own) ever be justified? Should a teacher/parent insist on supervising all Internet use by children at the risk of censoring, or even banning, access to it? Is reporting on a friend/classmate’s misbehavior an obligation or a voluntary act likely to lead to some form of social ostracism?
In some instances, there may be a moral conflict between Jewish ritual and secular law. Take the case of the 13 year old who has just become bar mitzvah and has internalized the value of praying with a minyan. One day he wakes up late and realizes that the only way to arrive on time for the minyan is to trespass through someone’s property. What is the correct decision? The present paper depicts an approach for clarifying what constitutes ethical dilemmas and the role educators can play in raising ethical awareness.
Defining our terms
Although often used interchangeably, it may be worthwhile to distinguish between morals, ethics, and character. In each of these, values – individual, group, and societal – are at the heart. When we discuss character education, there is little disagreement on what is right and wrong. Thus, respect and responsibility are part of the consensus, as are loyalty (read Charlotte’s Web) or courage (beautifully illustrated by reading anything about or by Helen Keller). Dilemmas occur when universal values like these conflict with each other and a choice needs to be made; here is where reasonable people will disagree as to which choice is more correct.
Essentially following the analysis offered by Deigh (1995), we also adapt the distinction between moral and ethical dilemmas. The difference between the two is somewhat subtle, with the former relating more to personal behavior and the latter stressing the social system in which these morals are applied. Thus, once developed, a moral code is relatively stable whereas an ethical code is dependent and determined by the group with which one affiliates or identifies such as a society, organization or professional group. It should be pointed out that a person may have a moral or ethical dilemma not only within himself/herself or within the profession but also between his moral and ethical self. For example, this can occur when a religious (Jewish or not) therapist is asked to treat a person whose behavior or life style is not readily approved of within the ethical code (e.g., Torah or Koran) that he/she follows. In an example especially relevant to educators, our moral and ethical side can clash when we try to teach the binding of Isaac. For a young child, the devotion and religious commitment of Abraham is the clear focus and little, if any, difficulty in conveying these values is present; but for an older student who has already developed some perspectives on morality, the story is likely to be more difficult to teach.
A school setting is fertile ground for analyzing moral and ethical behaviors. Indeed, one can ask whether a school problem, with its special rules of behavior, is a moral or ethical issue that needs to be solved. Moreover, the rules learned in the classroom can be used for deciding proper behavior both inside and outside the four walls of the classroom. Unlike an organization where group or team work is often the ideal and a manager may not care that much who and how much was contributed by each member, in a school the individual needs to be evaluated, and so group behavior, though sometimes appropriate and even encouraged, usually must still allow for individual assessment. A problem becomes a moral conflict when a choice must be made and, regardless of what is chosen, the consequences may lead to some undesirable effect. Conflict exists because the actor and the outsider(s) who are privy to what is taking place are each trying to determine the right course of action or, what is sometimes awkwardly called, the better “good.”
It is here where the main distinction between character building and moral/ethical development becomes glaringly. While there is broad agreement that character building should be the goal, it is often difficult to define clearly what is the “better” good, as the definition of “good” varies by culture, state, region, religion, gender, and even between young and old. To determine what course should be chosen involves so many variables or considerations that two friends and neighbors who ostensibly are from similar backgrounds, maybe even from the same family, may readily choose different solutions to their dilemmas and follow differing paths, even though both have made their decision using moral guidelines. Thus, one persistent and vexing issue emerging from the advances in modern medicine is the value of a life for a terminal patient who is also suffering greatly. In trying to teach the value of life in a classroom setting, a teacher may bring up for discussion two legitimate solutions to the problem. Thus, one may equally argue that the sick patient who is suffering and can be kept alive only by using artificial means may be better off if disconnected from the respirator, or that it is better to continue life no matter what the consequences. A relevant term here is integrity or reliability, which refers to the consistency of the behavior or the choice process. A person with high integrity would be expected to demonstrate the same choice process every time the situation is presented, regardless of whether with the patient is a mother, a friend, a total stranger or a rival.
Distinguishing features of moral or ethical dilemmas
Moral/ethical issues must be clearly distinguished from legal ones. A child stealing from a friend in class is clearly doing something illegal even if not yet old enough to be legally prosecuted. However, when the same girl sees someone cheating and must decide whether the misbehavior should be reported or not, we are talking about moral/ethical issues. While cheating is wrong, it becomes both a moral and ethical conflict (as defined above) if there are extenuating circumstances that may allow or excuse (or even mandate!) it. For example, a child who knows that reporting on a classmate’s cheating behavior is likely to lead to social ostracism is choosing the better “good” as he sees it. While, from the teacher’s viewpoint, the correct behavior might be to report all such misconduct, there is another perspective to this dilemma which must be considered.
How does one decide what is the moral or ethically right thing to do in a given situation? The answer depends on a host of considerations. Unlike a law, which is absolute (in actuality, laws also consist of nuances and subjective elements), a moral determination depends on the situation and which values and principles one is ready or willing to invoke. An example here may be illustrative. Two moral people may have different views about when life begins. While the law may allow abortions, the person who feels that life begins at conception may feel that abortion is immoral in most cases, and even argue that it should be made illegal. The other side with strong ethical convictions may argue just as forcefully that mother’s physical and psychological health are critical determinants and must be taken into account when deciding to abort or not. What is most obvious in these dilemmas is that no side has a clear moral “right” and that a decision process based on specific values determines each person’s behavior.
Teaching for morals and ethics
In order to teach for ethics, it is important to remember that one of its most important features is that there is no clear and obvious answer to the question of defining right and wrong. What can be taught, then, is not the decision itself but the process of arriving at a decision. The first part of that process is to recognize that the merits of both positions. One must learn to weigh the alternatives, often by also taking into account the values held by others, and then make the decision that leads to the “better” good.
How does the child develop the skills needed to make hard choices now and also later in life when he may be the main decider for himself and for others? Arguably, the most popular theory for understanding how moral reasoning was developed by Lawrence Kohlberg (1987). His staged theory, described briefly below, builds on the following scenario:
A woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. While the drug was expensive to make ($200 a dose), the druggist was charging ten times that. The sick woman’s husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together half of what it would cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later, but the druggist refused. In desperation Heinz broke into the man’s store to steal the drug for his wife.
To ascertain levels of moral development, Kohlberg asked respondents a series of questions including the following:
- Should Heinz have stolen the drug?
- Suppose the person dying was not his wife but a stranger, should Heinz have stolen the drug?
- If the drug was for a pet dog that he loved, should Heinz steal the drug?
- Is it important for people to do everything they can to save another’s life?
- Was it against the law for Heinz to steal?
- Should people try to do everything they can to obey the law?
- Did the druggist have the right to charge that much?
Kohlberg was not so much interested in the answers to the questions but more so by the reasoning they used. From the responses to his questions he developed a taxonomy of the types of moral reasoning used. In the earliest stages (Pre-conventional morality), especially common in young children, rules are fixed and absolute and obeisance is important because it is a means to avoid punishment (Stage 1). In a later development of this level of moral reasoning (Stage 2), individual needs are paramount, so that whatever would help Heinz is the correct action. In the middle stages (Conventional morality), decisions are based on living up to social expectations and roles (Stage 3). What matters is conformity, being “nice,” and trying to figure out how a particular choice will affect relationships. This later develops into an understanding of the importance of society and the maintenance of law and order (Stage 4). In Kohlberg’s highest level (Post-conventional morality), hearing what others say becomes important, so that although maintaining society’s laws are important, the voice of the people must be heard as to what should be the accepted standards (Stage 5). This leads to Kohlberg’s highest stage, in which people follow these internalized, universal ethical principles, even if they conflict with laws and rules (Stage 6). (For more on Kohlberg see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg – ZG.)
In assigning ages to these stages, Kohlberg saw that before age 9, most children reason in a pre-conventional fashion, whereas by early adolescence, more conventional reasoning appears and, finally, most adolescents wind up at stage 3 with a few at 2 or at stage 4. Only a handful of adults actually achieve post-conventional morality reasoning.
Although this taxonomy was initially considered a major advance, it was not immune to critique (Vitton & Wasona, 2009). First, while Kohlberg talks about reasoning, the connection between moral reasoning and moral behavior is unclear. Is it possible for one to know what is right but not act on it? In addition, Kohlberg’s taxonomy was based exclusively on Western values, but does not explain how non-Western or religious considerations would be accounted for. Further, while Kohlberg emphasized the impact of peers on decision-making (as did Piaget in his cognitive developmental theory), he left out other potential influences, including school and family. Finally, is justice, the heart of the Kohlbergian process, the only variable of importance? What about compassion, caring, and other interpersonal feelings that may play an important part in moral reasoning? A particular advocate of the latter was Carol Gilligan (In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development, Harvard University Press: 1982) who felt that women and men do not undergo the same moral development process.
Training for moral reasoning
If we view moral knowledge as an acquired trait that can be taught just like any other skill or content area, then the role of the teacher is clear and the curriculum must include this area just as much as it does mathematics or literature. Given the concept of developmental stages, which seem like a logical approach for understanding why young children may have different sets of moral values than older ones, and also accepting the critiques of Kohlberg, how can a teacher incorporate the basic ideas and also allow for the new thinking in the field? First, the teacher may want to acknowledge to the students the many sources of ethical influences in their lives – home, school, religion, playground, and other human interactions – and help them become aware of different ethical codes in each realm. With this understanding the teacher can begin to illustrate the consequences of different behaviors. For example, if students understand that cheating only satisfies a personal need (stage 2), they can be helped to recognize that they have not taken into consideration the consequences on others (for example, being undeservedly chosen for a special program when someone else in class who deserves it more was not chosen). Such values may be discussed even in the early grades.
One approach to compensating for Kohlberg’s lacunae in his developmental formulation is to apply Bandura’s (1969) social learning theory to moral development. Bandura suggests that beyond the major behavioral issues of reinforcement and conditioning, children also learn by observation and imitation. Bandura’s research demonstrates that modeling is the basis of the development of a wide variety of behaviors, possibly including moral development. “Of the many cues that influence behavior, at any point in time, none is more common than the actions of others”(Bandura, 1986). Bandura found that children acquire many skills and behaviors simply by watching and listening to others around them particularly models who are warm, liked, and respected (other characteristics identified with models is that they have status, possess desirable characteristics, and be similar to the children regarding gender, race, ethnicity, etc.).
Bandura argues forcefully that imitating and modeling are often reinforcing by their very nature – a student who acts like the model may be more easily accepted by the group. A teacher may reinforce an observer who has taken on particularly good behavior of a model who always comes to school on time. By praising the observer the teacher has provided much needed reinforcement. Similarly, the modeling itself may lead to satisfying consequences as would be expected if the pupil, after observing the model studying hard before classroom tests, decides to adopt the same behavior and starts getting good marks himself.
Applying Bandura’s conceptualization for moral development could take many different forms. A teacher, with the cooperation of parents, could begin by setting a series of rewards for certain types of moral/ethical related activities – not so much for the right answer but for how the student decided to act in specific conflict situations. Were consequences weighed? Were the feelings of others taken into consideration? How was the “better” good arrived at before making the decision? Videos or movie clips using popular or highly respected people in the school (e.g., the best athlete) in situations that require moral-like decisions, especially when both options available to the child, can be valuable teaching tools.
In this vein, a teacher may want to have a different pupil every week in class describe a moral dilemma and let the class analyze it. It may very well be a legal issue, in which other rules may apply, or it may be moral one, and the process is the critical component. In any case, the student should be made to feel that there are no right or wrong answers, and that it is the processing which is essential. By praising the thinking and analysis involved, the teacher can make the process itself reinforcing so that the pupil, when confronted with moral dilemmas in the future, will think carefully and weigh all sides before deciding.. Of course, this is also an opportunity to introduce the idea that values in different cultures/religions may need to play an important role.
Maimonides and moral/ethical behavior
Twersky (1980, p. 454) writes that for Maimonides, arguably the most important Jewish thinker of the last 1000 years, when it comes to deciding on the correct choice in religious or moral dilemmas, the individual must learn how to struggle with the different options. This so-called heteronomy perspective of philosophy says that man is not innately endowed with moral reasoning (the autonomy approach) but rather must learn how to make the appropriate choice. Techniques such as social learning provide a mechanism whereby the teacher, with proper use of some of Bandura’s ideas on social reinforcement, can turn out pupils who will at least weigh available options, before deciding on a course of action. Once learned, Maimonides argued, this approach to moral and religio-ritual dilemmas becomes a part of the individual’s character.
References
Bandura, A. (1969). Social learning of moral judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113, 275-279.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
Deigh, J. (1995). Ethics. In Robert Audi (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
Kohlberg, L. (1987). The psychology of moral development. San Francisco: Harper.
Twersky, I. (1980) Introduction to the code of Maimonides. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Vitton, C. J., & Wasona, T. A. (2009). Between Kohlberg and Gilligan: Levels of Moral Judgment among Elementary School Principals. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 8, pages 92 – 116.