Chapter 11, “Becoming a Moral Adult”, highlights three of the most researched moral development models known throughout history.  The chapter discusses the similarities and major differences between the moral development models of psychologists Jean Piaget, Lawrence Kohlberg, and Carol Gilligan.  While each model thoroughly maps legitimate logic as to why society morally develops in a certain way, each model also reveals flaws to the moral development of humanity. 

Let’s first talk about Piaget’s model.  Piaget based his study on boys playing a simple game of marbles.  He discovered that certain age ranges perceived the game of marbles in different ways.  Piaget’s Stages of Moral Development are divided into four stages: early development (before age 2), egocentrism (years 3-7), heteronomy (years 7-8), autonomy (begins about age 11).  All four stages are cognitively based as each age group interacts differently with the marbles.  The early stages put the marbles in their mouths, the egocentric stage does not apply rules, the heteronomy stage believes the rules are passed down from outside authority figures, and the autonomic stage begin to internalize the rules behind the game. 

The chapter compares Piaget’s moral development model with the thinking process of a new journalist.  Beginning journalists “may be equated with the heteronomy stage of development…this journalist knows the rules and follows them” (Media Ethics 306).  The chapter goes on to compare Piaget’s third stage of autonomy to that of a more developed journalist by stating, “The journalist at this stage of moral development has so internalized and universalized the rules of ethical professional behavior that he or she can violate some of them for sound ethical reasons” (Media Ethics 306).  The one major flaw in Piaget’s model was that he failed to include females.

Unlike Piaget’s model, Kohlberg’s model is more “descriptive and not predictive…it does not anticipate how any one individual will develop but suggests how most will develop” (Media Ethics 307).  Kohlberg believed that only saintly figures like Socrates, Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Mother Teresa could achieve the highest sense of moral development.  Kohlberg’s moral model is based on treating others right, achieving one’s goals, and adhering to the laws.  Researches have problems with Kohlberg’s six stages because it seems as though only certain people can reach the sixth, highest stage.  Another troubling issue is that women scored lower than men on stages of moral development in many of Kohlberg’s studies.  That is where Gilligan comes into play.

How could it be that women were less morally developed than men?  That question prompted Gilligan, former student of Kohlberg, to develop her own moral scale.  She decided to study women in regards to the ethical decision of abortion.  Gilligan learned that most women based their ethical decisions on relationships.  Gilligan’s stages are less categorized, but still provide a clear explanation that women “develop in ways that focus on connections among people (rather than separation) and with an ethic of care for those people (rather than an ethic of justice)” (“Gilligan’s In a Different Voice”). 

Could journalists use Gilligan’s model as a way to morally make decisions.  I would argue that a journalist could use Gilligan’s model to make decisions in relation to their work.  A good journalist should be able to abide by a “rights based approach” while also allowing a community to “reconnect” with media as a primary tool (Media Ethics 309-310). 

Advertisement