Moral Development : Moral Reasoning- Prisoners Dilemma

Presented By: Group 1 Sonica Gupta 61 Mayank Awasthi 62 Vijay Krishan Gupta 63 Nishant Ranjan 64 Niharika Agarwal 65 Anupam Gupta 66

Moral Development

It focuses on the emergence, change, and understanding of morality from infancy through adulthood. In order to investigate how individuals understand morality, it is essential to measure their beliefs, emotions, attitudes, and behaviours that contribute to moral understanding. The field of moral development studies the role of peers and parents in facilitating moral development, the role of conscience and values, socialization and cultural influences, empathy and altruism, and positive development. Moral developmental psychology research focuses on questions of origins and change in morality across the lifespan.

Moral Reasoning

Moral reasoning is a thinking process with the objective of determining whether an idea is right or wrong. Moral reasoning is individual or collective practical reasoning about what, morally, one ought to do. This is an important and often daily process that people use in an attempt to do the right thing. Every day for instance, people are faced with the dilemma of whether or not to lie in a given situation. People make this decision by reasoning the morality of the action and weighing that against its consequences.

Why Ethics In Business ?

Ethics govern all voluntary human activities; business is voluntary human activity.
Business is a cooperative activity whose very existence requires ethical behavior.

All businesses require a stable society in which to carry their dealings

Ethical considerations are consistent with business pursuits.

IS

THERE ANY EVIDENCE THAT ETHICS IN BUSINESS SYSTEMATICALY CORELLATED WITH PROFITABILITY ?

IS

Prisoners Dilemma

A prisoners dilemma is a situation in which two parties , each faced with a choice between two options: either cooperate with other party or do not cooperate.

If both parties cooperate both will gain some benefit

If both choose not to cooperate ,neither gets the benefit If one cooperates and other chooses not to cooperate, the one who cooperates suffers a loss and the one who do not cooperate gains a benefit.

It was originally framed by Merrill Flood and Melvin Dresher working at RAND in 1950. Albert W. Tucker formalized the game with prison sentence rewards and gave it the name "prisoner's dilemma" (Poundstone, 1992), presenting it as follows:

Two members of a criminal gang are arrested and imprisoned. Each prisoner is in solitary confinement, Each prisoner is given the opportunity either to betray the other, by testifying that the other committed the crime, or to cooperate with the other by remaining silent. Here's how it goes:

If A and B both confess each serves 5 years in prison

If A confesses but B remains silent, A will be set free and B will serve 20 years in prison (and vice versa)
If A and B both remain silent, both of them will only serve 1 year in prison (on the lesser charge)

Conclusions

Betraying a partner offers a greater reward than cooperating with them, all purely rational self-interested prisoners would betray the other, and so the only possible outcome for two purely rational prisoners is for them to betray each other. The interesting part of this result is that pursuing individual reward logically leads both of the prisoners to betray, when they would get a better reward if they both cooperated. In reality, humans display a systematic bias towards cooperative behaviour in this , much more so than predicted by simple models of "rational" self-interested action. False assumption: In real life individuals have to deal repeatedly . When one individual takes advantage of other in one interaction , the victim can retaliate by doing the same in next interaction. This threat makes it more rational to cooperate than to take advantage.

IMPLICATION FOR ETHICS IN BUSINESS

Business interacts with customers, suppliers, creditors ; this interaction is ongoing and repetitive. If business tries to take advantage of its users today by unethical behavior , they will find a way to retaliate later. So the prisoners dilemma argument implies,

In long run , unethical behavior tend to impose cost on business because it undermines the cooperative relationship with its users. It tries to show even if people are individualistically motivated only by self interest , they would still have a good reason to be ethical in business.

Kohlberg Theory Of Moral Development

Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development constitute an adaptation of a psychological theory originally conceived by the Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget Kohlberg believed and was able to demonstrate through studies that people progressed in their moral reasoning (i.e., in their bases for ethical behaviour) through a series of stages. He used story-telling technique to tell people stories involving moral dilemmas. In each case he presented a choice to be considered for example between the rights of some authority and the needs of some deserving individual who is being unfairly treated.

One of the best known of Kohlbergs (1958) stories concerns a man called Heinz who lived somewhere in Europe.

Heinzs wife was dying from a particular type of cancer. Doctors said a new drug might save her. The drug had been discovered by a local chemist and the Heinz tried desperately to buy some, but the chemist was charging ten times the money it cost to make the drug and this was much more than the Heinz could afford. Heinz could only raise half the money, even after help from family and friends. He explained to the chemist that his wife was dying and asked if he could have the drug cheaper or pay the rest of the money later. The chemist refused saying that he had discovered the drug and was going to make money from it. The husband was desperate to save his wife, so later that night he broke into the chemists and stole the drug.

Kohlberg asked a series of questions such as: 1. Should Heinz have stolen the drug? 2. Would it change anything if Heinz did not love his wife? 3. What if the person dying was a stranger, would it make any difference? 4. Should the police arrest the chemist for murder if the woman died?

By studying the answers from children of different ages to these questions Kohlberg hoped to discover the ways in which moral reasoning changed as people grew. The sample comprised 72 Chicago boys aged 1016 years, 58 of whom were followed up at three-yearly intervals for 20 years (Kohlberg, 1984). He identified three distinct levels of moral reasoning each with two sub stages. People can only pass through these levels in the order listed. Each new stage replaces the reasoning typical of the earlier stage. Not everyone achieves all the stages.

Level 1-Pre Conventional Morality

At the pre-conventional level (most nine-year-olds and younger, some over nine), we dont have a personal code of morality. Instead, our moral code is shaped by the standards of adults and the consequences of following or breaking their rules. Authority is outside the individual and reasoning is based on the physical consequences of actions. Stage 1. Obedience and Punishment Orientation.
The child/individual is good in order to avoid being punished. If a person is punished they must have done wrong. The child assumes that powerful authorities hand down a fixed set of rules which he or she must unquestioningly obey.

Stage 2. Individualism and Exchange. At this stage children recognize that there is not just one right view that is handed down by the authorities. Different individuals have different viewpoints.

Level 2 - Conventional Morality

At the conventional level (most adolescents and adults), we begin to internalize the moral standards of valued adult role models. Authority is internalized but not questioned and reasoning is based on the norms of the group to which the person belongs. Stage 3. Good Interpersonal Relationships. At this stage children--believe that people should live up to the expectations of the family and community and behave in "good" ways. The child/individual is good in order to be seen as being a good person by others. Therefore, answers are related to the approval of others.

Stage 4. Maintaining the Social Order.

the respondent becomes more broadly concerned with society as a whole. The child/individual becomes aware of the wider rules of society so judgments concern obeying rules in order to uphold the law and to avoid guilt.

Level 3 -Post-conventional Morality

Individual judgment is based on self-chosen principles, and moral reasoning is based on individual rights and justice (1015% of adults, not before mid-30s). Stage 5. Social Contract and Individual Rights. The child/individual becomes aware that while rules/laws might exist for the good of the greatest number, there are times when they will work against the interest of particular individuals. The issues are not always clear cut. For example, in Heinzs dilemma the protection of life is more important than breaking the law against stealing. Stage 6: Universal Principles. People at this stage have developed their own set of moral guidelines which may or may not fit the law. The principles apply to everyone. E.g. human rights, justice and equality. The person will be prepared to act to defend these principles even if it means going against the rest of society in the process and having to pay the consequences of disapproval and or imprisonment. Kohlberg doubted few people reached this stage.

Critical Evaluation
1. The dilemmas are artificial (i.e. they lack ecological validity)

2. The sample is biased

3. The dilemmas are hypothetical (i.e. they are not real) 4.Poor research design

Critical Evaluation Continued

Does moral reasoning necessarily lead to moral behavior? Kohlberg's theory is concerned with moral thinking, but there is a big difference between knowing what we ought to do versus our actual actions. Is justice the only aspect of moral reasoning we should consider? Critics have pointed out that Kohlberg's theory of moral development overemphasizes the concept as justice when making moral choices. Factors such as compassion, caring and other interpersonal feelings may play an important part in moral reasoning. Does Kohlberg's theory overemphasize Western philosophy? Individualistic cultures emphasize personal rights while collectivist cultures stress the importance of society and community. Eastern cultures may have different moral outlooks that Kohlberg's theory does not account for.

Concept Of Rational choice

Ethics is all about making the right decision. It is not about judging on the scale of good or bad. Neglecting the interests of others is irrational because of the following reasons:It may eventually damage your own interest It is also logically inconsistent

a) b)

Necessary Conditions For rational Choice:

Have a consistent rationale. Be consistent with your goals. Be consistent with who you are.

Caveats(Limitations):

Conditions must be applied in order to understand them better. Evaluation needs training and Experience,hence dont expect quick and instant answers. There can be good arguments as well as bad arguments depending on the situation.

Necessary Conditions Continued.

Usually it is suggested to keep aside your previous learning's if any of Business Ethics, as some theories if taken too seriously may hamper your decision making. Eg:- Kants Theory strongly condemned telling lies, but in some situation lying may be a necessity in order to make the situation under control, hence the above point gets justified.

Ethics: A Single Framework

An ethical choice must meet multiple consistency tests in order to be considered as Ethical. The Main tests are:Generalisation Test Utilitarian Test

1. 2.

3.

Virtue ethics Test

The Generalization Test:

It states that we always act for a reason. Behind every action, there is a rationale.

The Watch case:

A person may like to steal a watch, because he would like to have it.

If this reason is sufficient for him, he assumes it is sufficient for others as well.
If the reason is not sufficient for others, it is because others think that they may get caught and refrain from doing such an act.

But if the security factor is ignored or assumed to be not present, all people will steal watches and the reason for the person stealing the watch will no longer apply.

The Generalization Test Continued..

As a result, the shop will stop selling watches or may tighten the security. Hence the reason for an action must be consistent with the assumption that others will have the same reasons and would act the same way. The real reasons to act in a specific manner should be necessary and sufficient. The scope of the action must be correctly identified

Rational Choice: How to decide???

In order to make a rational decision there are a lot of bottlenecks that one may have to pass through. One may consider using the two golden rules for making a rational choice, these areBe consistent with your goals.

1.

2.

Making up your mind and concluding what are your ultimate goals, and sticking with your ultimate goals in a consistent manner.

The Utilitarian test:

This test states that one should choose an action that maximizes the net expected utility and meets the other conditions for a rational choice.
The case of stealing a watch may increase utility but theft fails the generalization test. Self interest-It plays a major role in every decision making aspect, but obligations change as one acquires responsibility for others.

The Virtue Ethics Test

This test states that a rational decision cannot come from just nowhere.

It must be based on larger understanding of our role in the world.

We cant decide what to do until we decide who we are and why we are here. Virtue ethics focuses on finding a common ground on who we are as human beings.

The Virtue Ethics Test: Continued..

Teleological Explanation-Aristotle gave the teleological explanation(telelos=purpose),that makes sense of things by assigning them a purpose or function in a system.Eg:-Hearts function is to pump blood.
Similarly the function of human beings is to be uniquely human and bring with them certain qualities to the world(virtues) like courage,honour,ability,aesthetic sensibilities etc. It states that it is irrational to sacrifice a virtue,except for the sake of another virtue.

THANK YOU