Morals

For an intellectual Fowler’s framework could be the next “big thing” in terms of serious theoretical positions on the formation of morality and moral reasoning and the substance of faith. In a human perspective, Fowler successfully attempted to provide a picture that illustrates and guides both the individual being studied and the observer/scientist via the stages (Berger, 1994).

Though these stages are not as explicitly applicable to all persons, like other psychologists such as Erikson and Maslow, Fowler’s important contribution apparently is more than expansion of Kohlberg or Piaget. His own personal journey, lengthy and in-depth research has given him a solid premise to work on (Berger, 1994).

My personal journey may probably be described closely in the perspective which is described by Fowler. I don’t have much experience and enough intellectual prowess and scholarship to be in the position to do a thorough critique on the theory and theorist.

However, since it is a personal response paper, there is one segment that I can truly say that speaks a lot about who I am and my own journey. For instance, faith and morality are intricately intertwined just as faith, ethics and values are almost synonymous (Berger, 1994).

Fowler may be correct to a certain extent in attributing specific concepts which indeed are descriptive of universal experiences (Berger, 1994), and I cannot argue with this theorist on this issue. It is altogether important to me that individuals must come to grips to the effects of personal faith on conduct and decision making process, and such issues as personal priorities.

It is when a person decides to commit to what may be attributed as a mystical Being (i.e., in the conception of God) that spells a difference to that person’s worldview or way of life. I would still like to argue with Fowler that he has reduced so much to an intellectual explanation something which cannot be explained since there is a difference (in my perspective and understanding) between mere knowledge of God and real spirituality.

I personally don’t like it when intellectuals and philosophers settle to “study God” or morality and departing from real substantive and life changing faith.

Reference:

Berger, K. S. (1994). The developing person through the life-p. (3rd ed). Worth.

According to Moore and Bruder (2005), our unique and distinctive capacity to reason was termed by Aristotle as virtue. There are two kinds of virtue – when we study or exercise our reasoning abilities, we are said to be intellectually virtuous. When we use our reasoning to moderate our impulses and appetites, we are said to be morally virtuous. According to Aristotle, virtue (whether intellectual or moral) is a matter of habit. Meaning, your moral character (or moral virtuousness) is based on your habits.

What you do always (habit) will mold your character. For example, ever since I was young, my mother always taught us to give to the less fortunate (not necessarily money, food and neglected toys will do). Honestly, I was really not into it but I’d rather be forced to give something than look at the stern face of my mom. Hehe! Thus, giving eventually became a habit to me. And I must say, that habit help built the generous and helpful character that I have today. As for moral character and politics, we must first talk about moral judgments.

Moore and Bruder said that many moral judgments are also political judgments. For example: “Is it justifiable for a government to restrict its citizens’ liberty? ” or “When, if ever, is fine and imprisonment legitimate? ” Thus, to make right political judgments, a politician must have a strong moral character from which to draw his decision that will affect the state’s citizens. Both Plato and Aristotle believed that the state is a living being that has a purpose. To Aristotle, its purpose is to promote good life (happiness) for humans.

A state politician must then have a strong moral character (or the political will) to do what is morally right to uphold the good life for the state’s citizens. Aristotle also said that a good politician or lawmaker will seek a political order where the citizens will develop the morally right (best) habits from which they will develop their own moral characters. All told, if you want a leader to advocate what is morally right for the citizens, then that leader should have a good moral character.

Reference

Moore B. & Bruder, K. (2005). Philosophy: The Power of Ideas. USA: The McGraw-Hills

Companies.

Should the husband break into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? The husband should not break into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife because based on Kohlberg’s stage one of obedience he should not steal the medicine because he would be put in prison, which would mean he is a bad person. Also based upon stage four law-and-order he should not steal the medicine because the law prohibits stealing, making it illegal.

Lastly based upon Stage six universal human ethics should not steal the medicine, because others may need the medicine just as badly, and their lives are equally significant.Even though I think her husband should not steal the drug I still would because I think my spouse’s life is more significant than a prison sentence. 2. Should Brown report what he saw? Brown should report what he saw because his duty is to protect and make sure all laws are being abided by his duty is not to determine whether a crime is ethical or not. If police officers let personal friendships, opinions, and biases get in the way of their jobs there would be a lot of criminals on the streets and people in jails that have done lesser crimes which is happening today.Stage four on law-and-order explains illegal actions should be punishable. 3.

Should the judge sentence the husband to prison? I think the judge should sentence the husband to prison if there are no other options available as far as counseling, probation, and other alternatives for prison. The judge should consider if the man is a threat to society and make his decision based upon that. In stage six universal human ethics, the judge could think or consider saving a human life is a more fundamental value than the property rights of another person.