Publishing Web for Students' Final Papers
Publishing Web for Students' Final Papers |
|
From: Ruben Sol Aguirre
Email:
Course: Psyc100G: Issues of Diversity
College: University of California Santa Cruz
Instructor: Eugene Matusov
ClassWeb: http://www.ematusov.com/psych100G
ChildrenObservations: No
Date: 13 Dec 1996
Time: 16:48:37
Remote Name: oakeslab-07.ucsc.edu
In this paper, I will attempt to explain or muse about the morality from three perspectives. From Emily, I get the definition of morality. From Richard, the uses of purpose of morality is given to me. From Mark, I get a searing put down of Kohlberg's theory of Moral Development. Their words will come straight from the third draft of our group paper. Then, I will give four examples of cultural diversity. That is, I will four different perspectives on what morality is and how it plays in the lives of four different cultures. Then I will attempt to extrapolate any similarities in my research.
Morality, according to the Webster's dictionary, is a doctrine or system of conduct defining principles of right and wrong behavior. Emily tells us, "Within a society, these morals are represented as a collection of norms enforced upon the individual through the threat of sanctions. These sanctions can be either extreme or subtle, arising from such varied sources of culture, family, and community. A system of morals defines the actions expected of the individual; it differentiates between what is accepted as 'good' and what is rejected as 'bad.' Within individual communities, these guidelines are viewed as universals, applicable to all individuals everywhere. The moral code serves as a way of evaluating the behavior of others, a way to pass judgment not only on those within the individual's community, but also those without."
"But, as becomes obvious during the study of diverse cultures, the morals one community holds as valid and true, may be alien to another; the norms and values considered 'good' and 'bad' vary from society to society. For example, the taking of many spouses is a practice viewed as practical and moral in some societies, yet considered abhorrent and immoral in others. Differences such as this create a good deal of tension between communities; they, more than anything else, serve to make different cultures seem foreign and reprehensible."
Richard gives us the Freudian view: "Morals developed as a means for human beings to live together in peace. In their natural state, unencumbered by social and societal restraints, human beings possessed no code of morals. . . Alone in the wild, the concerns of the individual were all that mattered; he or she did not need to rely on the happiness and well being of other, and the restrictions of morals proved wholly unnecessary. Only with the creation of communities did moral codes come into being. People began to band together, finding superior strength in greater numbers. But with the attainment of greater strength came the restriction of individual action. . . in order to maintain the cohesive nature of a community, the selfish manner of individuals only served to fragment a unifie society into a number of warring individuals. Thus, in order to maintain stability, the actions of the individual became regulated by a generally accepted code of conduct. To protect individuals from their neighbors, it was necessary to ensure that no unpunished harm would befall them at their neighbors hands. This was achieved through enforcing upon the populace the concept of empathy -- the idea that you should do unto others as you would have done unto yourself. This institutionalized concept, enforced with punishment, became the first moral code; it served to assure that individuals were able to deal with each other in a less than violent manner."
This is interesting in that the Taoists agree with the first part of this theory, but would tell Freud he is going off the deep end. Yes, we didn't need morals in the beginning. But not because we weren't with others. Not because we were inherently selfish creatures. No, in the beginning we were in our natural state. That natural state is following the Tao -- that which is everything. So if one follows the Tao, one serves oneself as well as all people. Thus one was naturally good; even though the concept of "good" hadn't even been created. Because for the Taoists, once one creates morality, that is the concepts of "good," or "bad," one is deviating from the path of Tao. An act one does not want to do ideally (Ni, 32).
The Sioux agree somewhat with the Taoists, but tend to put a little more emphasis on the goodness aspect of ourselves. As Noble Red Man says, "Goodness is the natural state of the world. The world is good! Even when it seems evil, it's good. There's only goodness in God. And that same goodness is in us all (Arden, 67). So in essence, life is goodness, no matter what form it takes. We have that goodness inside us all, we must only look for. What exactly goodness, one can't be sure, but perhaps they mean it to mean God's instructions, "to respect the Earth and each other, to respect life itself (Arden, 33). Maybe a respect for all things including oneself is goodness -- a fairly simple and easy morality I might add.
The Buddhists start off from the universal law of cause and effect -- karma. It permeates everything. In the beginning before humans it was there. When humans first came into being it was there. And to this day it is there. Simply put, karma means that good actions and thoughts bring about good results, bad actions and thoughts bring about bad results. So "bad," or "evil" comes from ignorance of karma. We suffer because of our desires -- desires for eternal youth, for material goods, for pleasurable sensations, for power. If knows the law, and wants to live as happy a life as you can live, one should not only know karma, but work to make oneself to have good thoughts and do good deeds (Huebner, 341-345).
Neither of these three morality systems say outright the so-called "Golden Rule." They do however imply it. If one follows the Tao, one would naturally do unto others as one would them do unto one because everyone is the Tao (Ni, 76). With the Sioux, respect for all creatures, including all human beings is of utmost importance. You give respect because you respect back -- it is "God's Instructions." So although it isn't in a golden rule form, it's very moral structure demands that it be so. For the Buddhists, if you want to suffer as little as possible, you should treat others good and with respect, because according to the universal law of karma, it will came back to you (Huebner, 344).
Furthermore, as Richard tells us, "Freud's views lead one to believe that morality of the individual is based solely on his or her actions; this conception of morality serves its purpose as a societal tool, merely ensuring the continuity of the community . . . it is not empathy that prevents the harming of others, but merely the individual's fear of societal retribution." With the Sioux, these is somewhat true, with the community ostracizing someone if they don't treat others with respect. When it comes to "evil deeds" and "lies," however, they believe it comes back at you. Specifically with lies, Noble Red Man tells us, "He thinks he got away with it. But he can't get a way with it. God will make him pay. God doesn't forget your lies." (Arden, 93). For the Buddhists, retribution is coming from the self because one has not followed the law (Huebner 343). And for the Taoists, if you stray from the path of Tao, you will inevitably lead yourself to woe (Ni, 89).
When it comes to moral development itself, Kohlberg is the king and reference point in Western psychological thinking. It has problems, as Mark tells us, "The process of reasoning Kohlberg strives to illuminate is one secondary to any type of moral reality. It is completely separated from action, and is rooted merely in one's relationship with the moral code. In the preconventional level there is no empathy towards one's neighbors, nor is there an understanding of the necessity of a moral code; there is only the fear of retribution -- this is all that keeps the individual moral. In the conventional stage, the individual feels empathy towards his or her neighbor, and wishes to promote moral behavior in order to avoid the breakdown of society; these two factors contribute to moral behavior. And, in the postconventional stage, the individual acts morally because he or she recognizes the values and principles at the basis of the moral code and agrees with their intent. So, while people in all three stages have different reasons for their actions, these actions are still confined by the same socially determined criterion of "right" and "wrong," and they are still actively motivated to perform in a way deemed "moral" by society. The complexity of their reasoning does not make their actions any more or less moral, it merely alters their motivation.
"Kohlberg's theory has received criticism from many theorists, mostly for his statements of universality. The population he used in his research consisted mostly of white, middle-class, American males, and did not take into account possible variations arising from gender, culture, or socio-economic status. In fact, scholarship such as Gilligan's work with women, and research of moral development in foreign cultures, renders Kohlberg's claims of universality downright suspect."
Ann Huebner and Andrew Garrod, in their analysis of Buddhist philosophy, found a few more criticisms of Kohlberg and Western psychology in general. They tell us that Western theoretical science is always looking for some universalizing moral framework for all cultures (341). Kohlberg assumed a view of morality to be an ideal to attain, and the entire field of moral reasoning research functions within assumptions of such founding fathers of Western culture as Plato, Descartes, and Hume (amongst others). Thus, everything has been and continues to be conceptualized within this framework, a framework that assumes morality to be a human construct (343). In the Buddhist world, however, the definitions of good and bad are not human constructs -- they come out that which is not man-made, but always is --karma. Kohlberg and Buddhism disagree on the nature of human existence. Whereas Kohlberg feels that the issues of life, property, and law are universal because they are basic to the human condition, the Buddhists say "life is eternal and property perpetuates suffering and unhappiness." (Huebner, 343). When it comes to hardships in daily life, we in the West blame fate, and yell and curse at the world for being unfair. The Bhuddists, however, feel there is always something positive coming out of negative events, for when these "bad" things happen, we are getting rid of the accumulated bad karma. We are closer and closer to realizing ourselves as human beings (Huebner, 345-346). When it comes to the self, we in the west are very much self absorbed. We have theories and therapies for discovering oneself, finding oneself, and reclaiming oneself. And through these we can attain self-sacrifice and compassion that is needed to be a human being. The Buddhists on the other hand believe in detachment from the self; for only when is detached from one's desires can one be truly compassionate (348-349). The basic point is that if Western morality can't agree with Buddhist morality on some basic points, why must we search for universal moral development?
With all the different cultures we have addressed so far, it is important to keep this point in mind. Buddhism, Taoism, and the Sioux philosophy, are all created and handed down by the leaders and elders of the communities. They are ideal frameworks by which they hope the people will live by. Whether the people actually put into practice is another question. Actions are important when it comes to reality. For instance, if we look at the subculture of Latino youths in the inner-cities, we see an interesting phenomenon. Many, through poverty and lack of family, have failed to receive any sort of moral framework to live by. On the contrary, their morals come from such sources as television, video games, magazines, and their experiences on the street. They don't have these elders to tell them what is right or what is wrong, and they don't have a community to exemplify these values. Thus, when you come across a Latino adolescent, and you ask him/her what is important in life, they'll most likely give you one answer -- survival. And if you probe them even farther (if they allow you), you'll get this one value over all else -- to be rich. Rich not in spirit but in material goods. So, even though these youths come across such morals as goodness and evil, they hear and see so little of it, they can't put it in their actions, for they would not know how to act. Of course, this varies according to what sort of family background one has, but in general, in many inner-city barrios, these are the values of the children.
We may put down the fact that old people or people in power create our morals. I think, however, that it is important to realize who exactly is dictating morality and what sort of morality they are dictating. If it's Buddhism, Taoism, Lakota, Western Psychology, or any host of others, I believe they all work just fine. But if al you're getting is mixed information from a variety of sources, such as the Latino youths, I think there are problems. It does not matter whether we can find a universal moral. It does not matter if we find we are all so different. I believe most moralities work if they are consistently presented and acted upon. It is up to us be consistent in what we believe, and respect all those others that exist. And if we find that we like another system of belief, that's fine, as long as we are consistent and not jumping from one belief system to another every six months. I myself have my own morals about morality: respect, consistency, and an appreciation for all else.
