Due Oct 5th by 11:30 EST Have you ever considered what has set the foundation for you as to what is right and wrong? What

Due Oct 5th by 11:30 EST Have you ever considered what has set the foundation for you as to what is right and wrong?  What drives your ethical decision making?  Although not without some controversy and detractors, a man named Lawrence Kohlberg set out to define and describe moral learning in people in the world.  He tested hundreds of men with a dilemma called Heinz’s dilemma. The dilemma went something like this: Imagine living 1000 years ago – and there was a guy named Heinz and his wife.  Heinz’s wife had a very rare form of cancer.  A doctor in a town down the road has come up with a new medication that could treat Heinz’s wife’s cancer and give her a shot at life.  He charges 2,000 dollars for this – 10 times what it cost him to make.  Heinz did everything he could to come up with the money and he could only come up with 1000 dollars.  He begged and pleaded for the pharmacist to take $1000 dollars as a down payment and let him pay the rest back in payments.  The pharmacist declined.  Desperate, Heinz broke into the pharmacy and stole the medication.  Should Heinz have done this – and why? Kohlberg was not interested in whether or not you said yes or no to this dilemma.  He was more curious as to WHY you agreed or disagreed.  Through his research, he gave people thorny moral dilemmas, and broke up their answers into three different types of moral reasoning. It is easy to keep up with the three stages – since the first one is “pre”, the last one is “post” and the middle one is normal.  If you take a future psychology course here at Grantham, you’ll learn more about Kohlberg and how each level is broken up into two stages – but for the purposes of this course, we want you to understand that Kohlberg had three levels of thought – which are stated above. Preconventional thought occurs primarily in children, but it can occur in adults.  This is when you participate in a behavior because you get a reward or to avoid a punishment.  Why did you donate to that charity?  Well, I got entered into a million dollar raffle to do it – and I wanted to get a chance!  Why did you volunteer at the homeless shelter?  My coach said I would have to run 20 laps if I didn’t volunteer.  These are examples of preconventional thought.  The method and reasoning why you do something is to get a reward or avoid a punishment.  In Heinz’s dilemma, the example answers might be – well, of course you steal it – you get a free 2000 dollar drug!  Or – no, if you steal, you go to jail – and you don’t want to get in trouble, do you?  If those were your thoughts about the dilemma, you are in preconventional thought.  Most adults are not in preconventional thought, but some still are. Conventional thought is more advanced than preconventional thought, and it is a progression children make as they get older and get more thoughtful.  They start to consider – what would a good person do?  They haven’t internalized themselves that they are a good person – but they really focus on trying to be good – and that is their justification for a behavior.  Also – their justifications come into understanding that laws are there to protect society – and one should honor laws.  So the type of answers someone might give to the previous dilemma in conventional thought would be – a good husband would protect his wife at all costs; subsequently, stealing the drug is an appropriate behavior.  Or someone might also say that the law is the law – and it is wrong to steal – not because you are going to be punished – but what type of society would we have if we do not obey the rules? Finally, we advance to postconventional thought.  Postconventional thought comes in when you consider laws and rules, and you have your own belief system – and your belief system may actually go outside the laws and rules – and you understand and respect them – but you are willing to fight for your belief system at all costs.  It is the highest level of thinking.  The belief system may be the same as the law – or it may be different.  So examples of post-conventional thought to Heinz’s dilemma might be things like Life is more important than property – and when deciding whether or not to do something – you have to consider the value of each – and valuing life is a way more lofty endeavor.  Or something like – laws are grounded in justice, and there is no justice in allowing someone to die to make a 100% profit with no consideration for a payment plan – so it is absolutely justified. Part of critical thinking and understanding critical thinking is to learn how to become a stronger ethical and moral thinker.  Understanding the levels of thought you to consider how you’re thinking.  It’s unlikely that we will always answer questions with post conventional thought.  For instance, there may not be some universal principal as to why you change your oil and rotate your tires – it may sometimes be just to avoid having to pay costly car repairs down the road – but in life and death situations – or thorny situations dealing with complex levels of thought – always keeping your own values and principles in mind can you become a more critical thinker.  As part of your assignments and work this week – consider these levels of thought – and if you’re not quite there yet – that’s absolutely okay.  Even thinking about higher levels of thought can assist you in achieving your critical thinking goals.  One final thought about critical thinking.  As soldiers, you are taught to obey orders.  But as thorny situations in movies like Born on the Fourth of July teach us – “just obeying orders” does not stand up in court as an affirmative defense to a criminal action – so understanding critical thinking always pays dividends. Week 7 Replacement Assignment:  The following is a true story – and it made national headlines several years ago.  A Houston Texans football player and his wife got the call from a hospital in Dallas that his wife’s mother (the football player’s mother in law) was dying and only had a few minutes left to live.  They hopped in the car and sped toward the hospital around midnight.  Not many cars were on the road.  As they were approaching the hospital, they ran a couple of red lights to get them there faster.  A police officer saw this, and pulled them over as they were pulling into the hospital.  The couple seeing the lights called ahead to the hospital to have a nurse meet them to substantiate their story that their mother was dying and only had a few minutes left.  When the couple jumped out of their car, the police officer drew his gun and told them to get back into the car.  He walked over to them and they explained the situation.  The police officer said he did not care, and they drove wrecklessly and broke the law.  The nurse substantiated the claim, and the doctor came out as well and substantiated the claim.  The police officer called for back-up and told everyone to stay in their car.  He gave the football player a ticket.  After the process, they ran inside but it was too late and the mother had died.

Need your ASSIGNMENT done? Use our paper writing service to score better and meet your deadline.

Click Here to Make an Order Click Here to Hire a Writer