The Terms of Good and Evil - Book Report/Review Example

Customarily, psychology has kept away from studying anything that is burdened with value judgments. There is an extent of difficulty concerned in trying to be unprejudiced with regards to things that have to do with terms like good as well as bad. As a result, one of the most considerable aspects of human existence which is morality has had to hang around quite a while before anyone within psychology is challenged to handle it (Moshman, 2005, p. 104). Nevertheless Lawrence Kohlberg desired to study about morality, and did so by employing a few of the most fascinating, if not divisive performance. Fundamentally, he would inquire children along with adults to try to resolve moral difficulties contained in little tales, and to do so vocally so he could tag along their reasoning. It was not the detailed answers towards the dilemmas that pull his attention, but rather how the individual got to his or her solutions (Berk, 1991, p. 207). 1. The Stage Development is invariant. An individual must improve through the stages sequentially, and one might not arrive at a higher stage without passing through the stage instantaneously preceding it. A principle that such a bound into moral maturity is achievable is in pointed contrast towards the facts of developmental explorations. Moral development happens to be a growth, and similar to all growth, takes place in accordance with a programmed sequence. To look forward to someone to develop into high moral maturity immediately would be like anticipating someone to walk earlier than he crawls. 2. Inside the Stage Development, subjects might not realize Moral Reasoning at a phase more than one stage further than their own. If an individual is familiarized to perceive good almost completely as that which produces his/her satisfaction, how might he/she understand a perception of good wherein the "good" might bring him no concrete pleasure at all. The moral proverb - it is better to give than to receive, reflects a high point of development. The kid who sincerely asks you why it is better to give rather than to receive, asks, because he/she does not and cannot recognize such thinking. Towards the kid, "better" denotes better for him/her. And for this particular kid, how can it be better for him/her to give, rather than to get. 3. Inside Stage Development human beings are cognitively attracted towards one phase on top of their current predominant phase. The individual has questions as well as problems the resolutions for which are less fulfilling at his/her current level. While reasoning at one phase higher is understandable and since it produces more logic and resolves more complexities, it is smarter. For instance, two brothers both longed for the last piece of the pie. The larger, tougher brother will most likely get it. The little brother proposes that they share it. He happens to think at level two, rather than by level one. The explanation for him is more striking: having some rather than not having anything at all. An adult who operates at level one constantly might wind up in prison or even lifeless. 4. Inside Stage Development, development through the stages is achieved when cognitive disequilibrium is produced, that is, when an individual's cognitive position is not sufficient to manage a given moral impasse. The individual, who is growing, will search for more and more sufficient ways of resolving difficulties. If he has no troubles, no quandaries, he is not expected to hunt for solutions. He might not develop morally. Looking back with the pie example, the huge brother, who can merely win the pie and escape with it, is less expected to look for a better answer rather than the younger brother who will have nothing and almost certainly a beating during the struggle to have a piece. 5. It appears to be quite probable for an individual to become physically developed but not morally grown-up. If a kid happens to be spoiled, never having to have room for others wants, if he/she is raised within an atmosphere where level two thinking by others gets the work done, he might never create enough questions to force him towards a higher phase of moral reasoning. 6. Kohlberg supposed that merely around 25% of individuals ever develop towards level six, the majority often remains at level four. The Bible commands values of humility, diffidence, and sensible stewardship of the money. Appliance of these principles might rule out the purchase of costly jackets, jewelry, furs, flamboyant cars, or other items principally for show. An individual functioning at level six might have no problem employing these principles. Human beings who functions at a level four alternatively, might compose regulations with regards to cosmetics, jewelries, or other materialistic wants. But they may not even become aware of an expensive car or even the lady who sports a new dress each week. Those earthly things are not on the list. If Kohlberg's examination is accurate, then level 6 thinkers would most probably be inside the minority. They may even be misinterpreted and offended by the thinkers of level 4. The moral stages, afterward, reproduce extended insights into how point of views differs and may be synchronized. Per se, the moral stages may be connected towards stages of logical as well as social consideration which contain comparable insights. If this guide is acceptable, we may expect to discover many human beings who are logical also even socially discerning but still immature in their moral decision. Kohlberg has even tried to associate his moral stages towards other structures of cognition. He has initially examined his stages in terms of their essential cognitive arrangements and has then searched for parallels within purely logical as well as social thought (Gump, 2000). Even so, whatever criticisms and queries we may have, there is without a doubt that Kohlberg's achievement is great. He has not merely expanded on Piaget's stages of moral decision but has done so in a stimulating manner. He has reviewed the progress of moral reasoning as it may drive its way toward the thoughts of the grand moral philosophers. So, even if few people might ever start to think about moral concerns, Kohlberg has however provided us with a demanding vision of what improvement might be (Evans, 1982). Kohlberg desires to witness people move ahead towards the highest achievable stage of moral thinking. The best potential society would include individuals who not merely understand the requirement for social array but can also entertain dreams of universal values, like independence and justice (Slee, 2002, p. 348). References: 1. Moshman, D., Adolescent Psychological Development: Rationality, Morality, and Identity, Published by Routledge, 2005, ISBN 0805848304, 9780805848304. 2. Smith, P. K., et al., Understanding Children's Development, Published by Blackwell Publishing, 2003, ISBN 0631228233, 9780631228233. 3. Berk, L. E., Child Development, Published by Allyn and Bacon, 1991, ISBN 0205126820, 9780205126828. 4. Evans, C. S., Journal article, Moral Stage Development and Knowledge of Kohlberg's Theory, Journal of Experimental Education, Vol. 51, 1982. 4pgs. 5. Gump, L. S., et al., Journal article, The Moral Justification Scale: Reliability and Validity of a New Measure of Care and Justice Orientations, Adolescence, Vol. 35, 2000. 6. Slee, P. T., Child, Adolescent and Family Development, Published by Cambridge University Press, 2002, ISBN 052101090X, 9780521010900. Read More