Mohlberg's Model Of Morality Analysis

Morality “derives from the Latin moralis meaning customs or manners” (Thiroux 1). Many people in today's society often connect the idea of “people being ethical or moral to mean good or right and unethical and immoral to mean wrong or bad” (Thiroux 1). In regards to morality, people “do not conceive it in such an abstract and universal form” (Kant 21). Morals can be specified and altered in different cultures and through experiences. Morality can be developed throughout a person's lifetime, as there are no set universal morals in place. Society and policy can alter morals in an attempt to control people's actions. In fact, it can even impact a person's individual identity, in America, “Individual identity is connected to guilt and objective

In Kohlberg's model of cognitive moral development, he explored “how people determined what was right or wrong in a particular situation” (Trevino 604). This model focuses on the “reasons an individual uses to justify a moral choice, rather than the decision itself” (Trevino 604). It is also concluded that “[o]ur biology does not prescribe the specific forms our morality takes” (Singer 337). An experiment in which situational ethics are present would be the Trolley Problem. This experiment provides participants with two options, “turn the train down the side track, killing one person, or continue straight ahead and kill the five workers” (Thomson 1). Many scientists and psychologist believe that a specific situation can contribute to the moral actions a person takes. Situational ethics can contribute to morality by providing a certain circumstance in which a person has to make a moral decision. This high pressure situation provides participants with the opportunity to decide between two options, both having ethical consequences. The pressure of the situation can impact the result and outcome and can alter the moral decisions a person makes. Over time, as a person's cognitive ability develops and becomes more efficient, a person will likely make more thought out and high quality

Carey introduces that “[p]erhaps free will belief encourages a stricter form of universal morality” (139). Without free will, “there can be no sense of moral responsibility” (Carey 135). Free will, therefore moral responsibility as well, would result in the Nietzsche's claim that free will was implemented for the “purpose of punishment” (Nietzsche 355), which will also “impute guilt” (Nietzsche 355). In Careys study, it was found that “free will believers call for harsher criminal punishment” (Carey 135-136). Free will can influence universal morality. Free will can implement a stricter and more rigid form of morality. Without the influence of free will, the need for moral responsibility is absent. Nietzsche believes that free will was created to punish and impute guilt upon people. Free will was not created for that sole purpose but Nietzsche's belief is true. Free will allows people to make their own moral decisions based on what they believe. Free will also creates a standard and moral responsibility for people to conform to. Free will causes people to hold themselves and others more responsible for their actions, as they agree that harsh consequences should follow if moral rules are broken. Free will encourages people to take responsibility for their moral actions and the potential consequences encourage more positive moral