Evaluative Reasoning Across the Life Span - Myassignmenthelp.Com

Question: Discuss about the Evaluative Reasoning Across the Life Span. Answer: The Kohlberg ethical dilemma is a set of moral issues that question the ethics of an individual blurring the boundary of good and bad or right and wrong. The essay seeks to understand the issue of the dilemma in the modern context with the movie John Q. The movie seeks to analyze and understand the different issues that have been a cause of the moral dilemma among the population through the ages. The ethical dilemma is a situation where a person is made to choose between two categorical imperatives, both of which are equally correct and present a difficulty in choosing a correct option regarding the issue. The ethical choice and the socially accepted choice may not be the same. The dilemma in judging a course of action considering the different scenarios, which are both justified and dependent on subjective opinions, is the object of understanding in this situation (Kahane, et al., 2015). The dilemma and the major issues caused due to it in having conclusive opinions regarding situat ions and their possible responses across different age is the subject of study of Kohlbergs ethical dilemma. The different situations that arise in due time leading to the different subjective opinions and possible solutions towards it. Kohlbergs ethical moral dilemma is evident in a number of movies, where the justification of the negative actions of the protagonist is given in the movie, which makes the audience empathize with him (Weissbourd, Bouffard Jones, 2013). The movie in the given situation, John Q is one such movie where the audience cannot decide the ethics of the actions of protagonist. John Q, is a movie describes and shows the different aspects of human emotion with finesse and ease. The emotion of the father John Quincy Archibald, played by Denzel Washington, is a character who is willing to go to any limits to save the life of his son (Cassavetes, 2002). The film has a number of ethical issues in question, regarding the actions of John in the given situation. The movie starts with an accident where a female rash driver is killed. The later scenes show that the son John Archibald suffers from a major cardiac condition which needs and immediate heart transplant. John is full time factory worker facin g economic issues (Arnold, 2000). When he discovers that the insurance provided by their employer is not supporting the treatment and the surgery of his son, John starts to collect money to get his son enrolled in the organ donors list. Despite all their collective efforts they could not raise more than one third of the necessary amount needed for the surgery. In the situation feeling helpless, John decides to take a drastic measure of holding hostages in the hospital in lieu of his sons treatment. The situation faced by John and his action cannot be justified by an outsiders point of view at this point as all he was doing was to try the best to save the life of his son (Dawson, 2002). The demand of John against the life of 11 hostages held by him is simple, to save the life of his son by putting his name in the organ recipient waiting list. The issues faced by a poor individual and the dramatic situation in which it is resolved shows the moral dilemma that people face in such situa tions. John is a relatively poor person who overworks to meet the need of the family. when he is in need and all his efforts prove futile in saving the life of his son he is agitated at his incapability and decides to take the drastic step of holding the people hostage. It is very tough to judge his dilemma and the justification of his action unless one is in the shoes of John Quincy (Narvaez Lapsley, 2009). He faces a major dilemma of putting the life of a number of people at risk just to save his son. He very well knows that his reputation would be ruined at the end of the day because of the step he has decided to take. The changing scenarios in which the decisions are taken and the humane approach of john in the treatment towards the hostages will help in understanding the perspectives of John. The situation in which John is a very awkward one where it is very tough for an individual to judge his actions on the basis of individual perspectives. The different perspective and consequences of the action of John can be understood in the point of view of John but there are other sides of the story (Edwards Carlo, 2005). The actions of John look justified and in the individualistic perspective of the movie but to do the Kohlberg analysis effectively one needs to see the situation from both the perspectives and present an overview with the situation. When the situation is seen from the perspective of John Quincy, his actions are justified and he has to do whatever he can to save the life of his son. In the movie, it is later shown that he has to load the gun when he is contemplating suicide, which implies that the gun was not loaded during the whole ordeal (Narvaez, 2012). This makes it evident that he did not intend to hurt anyone despite of what others might have thought. It makes his position even more clear in the eyes of the viewers and is shown as protagonist. Moreover, the asking fees of $75000 just to put the name of the child in the organ recipients waiting list garnered sympathy from the audience considering the economic situation John was in. whatever these scenarios showed reinforced the belief of the audience in the innocence of John Quincy. The different situation in which he puts the lives of the hostages at a risk is not one that would put things in favor of him. No matter how humane his appeal was but what he hel d in custody was a hospital and hindered the safety of the people. Moreover, the hospital is a place where people are sick and unhealthy; the situation can push some of them into shock killing a few people. Saving a life is a prime concern that can be understood but the movie raises a number of other important ethical issues while the morality of John Q is judged in the movie. The solitary viewpoint of a single person is show in the movie where the other side is not very evident as shown in the movie Dog Day Afternoon too (Edwards, Carlo, 2005). The dilemma the people or audiences go through is the cinematic genius of the director of the movie who is showing the viewpoint of the protagonist. Since that is the only perspective emphasized in the movie, the people do not understand the overall consequences that the actions of the protagonist. Similarly, in the movie the dog day afternoon the protagonist is shown as the victim of the situation. It is generally common for the audience to empathize with the culprit in this case because most of the people have their own grudges against the norms of the society. The condition, which John Q puts the hospital in, may have gained support of the audience but there are other perspectives to look at. One of the most important issue that is over looked that his son automatically gets the heart of the accident victim who comes in but there is another issue which was over looked. Overlooking the other recipients to give John Quincys son the heart makes the scenario all the more immoral and unethical. Just because he was holding the hospital and a number of patients as hostages does not make the situation justifiable in any sense. Similarly, in the case of the movie Dog Day Afternoon, the family situation of Sonny and the need of his present wife to get operated does not make his actions socially justifiable. There are other ways to deal with situations in the society (Lumet, 1975). There are a number of people in the society, who are facing much harsher situations in life and they choose to fight it. The justification of the situation in movie may seem apt in a number of ways but they do not seem to be convincing. One might not be thinking of the consequences at the moment of taking decisions but the actions may have a lasting effect on the people who were affected. It is taken that both Sonny and John were compassionate and understanding of the hostage situations and the needs (Hart Carlo, 2005). This does not redeem them of their actions completely given that John gets a jail sentence Sonny kills his friend and is jailed for 20 years for his actions. The sympathy is gained from the acceptance of the fact that they faced the consequences of their actions does not make them complete. In both the movies the Kohlbergs moral and ethical dilemma is aggravated and the protagonists are showing doing actions which in a sense redeem them of their ill deeds. One of the situation is in which John is willing to give his own life and loads the gun with a bullet. This shows that he indeed did not seek to hurt anyone in the vicinity as the gun was not loaded and was willing to make the ultimate sacrifice to save the life of his son (Keller Edelstein, 1991). On the other hand sonnys condition in Dog Day afternoon is understood when his wife turns up. The majority of the sympathy that they get from the society in the move is because they are shown treating the hostages with compassion. This seems a very tough predicament for one to decide the justification of their actions since their actions seem right but were against the law and the social norms. The audience empathizes with the protagonist in such situations but the dilemma had not risen if not for their actions. There are a number of movies which show the people in really tough situations but they choose to work hard and fight against the system without breaking it or causing physical or psychological harm to anyone. One of the best movies fitting this example is The Pursuit of Happiness, where Chris Gardener is beaten by the situations and the system a number of times (Muccino, 2006). There are a number of scenarios where he could have gone against the law to fulfill his own needs when all the situations were against him. Given the scenario in the movie, the audience would have accepted his actions as justified too. The story is based on a real story so it cannot be said that it can be only done in movie. The overall scenario of portraying a father fighting for his son makes the situation, emotional and tilts the moral balance in their favor, but it has to be considered th at they were not the best of the alternatives that he adhered to (Pratt, Skoe Arnold, 2004). Alls well that ends well says the phrase but in the case of Dog Day Afternoon, the protagonist losses a lot of thing, most importantly his friend and twenty years of his life. The end of John Quincy shows the protagonist repentant and sentenced for his actions, but the dilemma never ends of who is right. Therefore, it is seen that the movie John Q, show the Kohlbergs moral ethical dilemma in every sense. The movie delves deeper in to the human emotions and the balance between the laws governing the society and the moral reasoning is questioned. The action of John Q when viewed in the perspective of the audience and the overall situation of John is justified. If the situation is viewed in the eyes of the law and the overall scenario where it occurs and the actions may not be justified in any way. It is also notable that the Kohlbergs dilemma of moral ethics can be attributed to all the movies in the action genre, where the protagonist does anything that they desire as a vengeance of something that has hurt them. References Arnold, M. L. (2000). Stage, sequence, and sequels: Changing conceptions of morality, post-Kohlberg.Educational Psychology Review,12(4), 365-383. Cassavetes, N. (2002).John Q (2002). [online] IMDb. Available at: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0251160/ [Accessed 4 Jan. 2018]. Dawson, T. L. (2000). Moral and evaluative reasoning across the life-span.Journal of Applied Measurement,1(4), 346-371. Dawson, T. L. (2002). New tools, new insights: Kohlberg's moral judgement stages revisited.International Journal of Behavioral Development,26(2), 154-166. Edwards, C. P., Carlo, G. (2005). Moral Development Study in the 21st Century: Introduction to Moral Motivation through the Life Span: Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, volume 51.Faculty Publications, Department of Child, Youth, and Family Studies, 37. Hart, D., Carlo, G. (2005). Moral development in adolescence.Journal of Research on Adolescence,15(3), 223-233. Kahane, G., Everett, J. A., Earp, B. D., Farias, M., Savulescu, J. (2015). Utilitarianjudgments in sacrificial moral dilemmas do not reflect impartial concern for the greater good.Cognition,134, 193-209. Keller, M., Edelstein, W. (1991). The development of socio-moral meaning making: Domains, categories, and perspective-taking.Handbook of moral behavior and development,2, 89-114. Lumet, S. (1975).Dog Day Afternoon (1975). [online] IMDb. Available at: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072890/?ref_=nv_sr_1 [Accessed 4 Jan. 2018]. Muccino, G. (2006).The Pursuit of Happyness (2006). [online] IMDb. Available at: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0454921/?ref_=nv_sr_1 [Accessed 4 Jan. 2018]. Narvaez, D. (Ed.). (2012).Evolution, early experience and human development: From research to practice and policy. Oxford University Press. Narvaez, D., Lapsley, D. K. (2009). Moral identity, moral functioning, and the development of moral character.Psychology of Learning and Motivation,50, 237-274. Pratt, M. W., Skoe, E. E., Arnold, M. L. (2004). Care reasoning development and family socialisation patterns in later adolescence: A longitudinal analysis.International Journal of Behavioral Development,28(2), 139-147. Smith-Osborne, A. (2007). Life span and resiliency theory: A critical review.Advances in social work,8(1), 152-168. Weissbourd, R., Bouffard, S. M., Jones, S. M. (2013). School climate and moral and social development.School Climate Practices for Implementation and Sustainability,30, 1-5.