More handpicked essays just for you.
compare and contrast freud, piaget and erikson theories
compare and contrast freud, piaget and erikson theories
developmental theories
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
I commend Dr. Carol Gilligan for challenging her colleagues and the Psychology profession to look at a population that had not yet been fully studied. Like her predecessors she added to the profession by using what existed determining what fit and what did not. Most noticeably she has three short stages that do not align with a certain age group or developmental period. For me this leaves a lot to be desired maybe out of habit. Erikson, Piaget, and Kohlberg had stages that aligned with developmental periods as a reference point. All three theorized that they were sequential. It is not stated but it seems like Dr. Gilligan’s are sequential as well. This is problematic because it suggests a linear progression that may not be attainable for everyone due to environment or culture. Initially the Development in the Ethic of Care model did not resonate with me. I immediately thought about motherhood or childrearing in an effort to understand it but in doing so disregarded women who are not mothers. This too is problematic. The stages are vague and the wording is misleading. I would challe...
Edith Wharton, author of Ethan Frome, successfully uses symbolism as a tactic to drive her intended themes home. One prominent theme throughout the novel is morals and conforming to societal standards conflicting with one’s desires that diverge from the status quo. Wharton’s symbols in Ethan Frome strongly support the theme of morals versus desire through emphasizing the gap between the two.
“Moral requirements are based on standards of rationality” (Johnson). Rational thinking allows us to determine right from wrong. This conscious decision leaves one with a choice of whether or not to act upon it. Understanding that a certain action, or lack thereof, will lead to negative consequences yet deliberately choosing such action is the bases of moral culpability. However, subjectivity of ethics and philosophies such as utilitarianism prove that moral culpability is entirely 2-dimensional and cannot account or explain the wide range of conflicting morals and ethics. An action can not be convicted as morally culpable because morals are entirely subjective and cannot be classified as right or wrong.
Question of morality is a controversial one and usually occurs when things take a turn for the worse. What do people considered being morally right and what is morally wrong? Does law dictate it or do we follow ethics? Where people believe that there is not other solution but to commit a deed that can ultimately lead to destruction, question of faith and sometimes death. Each person has his or her very own opinion of what is deemed moral and what is not.
Today I will be interviewing Baumeister, Gilligan, and Piaget who are some of the most influential psychologists in the field of moral development. I will be interviewing these three so and I have three critical questions in the field of moral development that I would like each to answer. I will then conclude with a brief summary of the similarities and differences between the psychologists I have interviewed.
Immanuel Kant addresses a question often asked in political theory: the relationship between practical political behavior and morality -- how people do behave in politics and how they ought to behave. Observers of political action recognize that political action is often a morally questionable business. Yet many of us, whether involved heavily in political action or not, have a sense that political behavior could and should be better than this. In Appendix 1 of Perpetual Peace, Kant explicates that conflict does not exist between politics and morality, because politics is an application of morality. Objectively, he argues that morality and politics are reconcilable. In this essay, I will argue two potential problems with Kant’s position on the compatibility of moral and politics: his denial of moral importance in emotion and particular situations when an action seems both politically legitimate and yet almost immoral; if by ‘politics’, regarded as a set of principles of political prudence, and ‘morals’, as a system of laws that bind us unconditionally.
One of the most persistently asked and perpetually unanswered questions in psychology is the question of morality. What is it, how does it develop, and where does it come from? A basic definition of morality is “beliefs about what is right behavior and what is wrong behavior” (Merriam-Webster). Based on the definition, the question then becomes even more complicated; How do people decide what is right and what is wrong? Research has examined this from many different angles, and two distinct schools of thought have emerged. One centers on the Lockian idea of children as blank slates who must be taught the difference between right and wrong and what it means to be moral, while the other espouses a more Chomskian perspective of a preset system of basic rules and guidelines that needs only to be activated. So what does this mean for humans and humanity? Are we born tabula rasa or are we born with an innate sense of good and evil? For those researching this topic, the question then becomes how to most effectively theorize, experiment and interpret human morality.
One of my recent classes was on “Ethics and Social Policy in Human Services”. The second half of this course was focused on ethical decision-making in human services, using case studies to identify the ethical principles and implications revealed in each. In one specific case study presented for discussion, Ann is a licensed social worker at a non-profit human service agency whose primary duties include counselling individuals and small groups. Ann has a client, Jasmine, who attends therapeutic group sessions twice weekly with Ann because her two year old daughter had been placed in foster care due to maltreatment and “failure to thrive”. These sessions are court ordered by the local child protective service agency in order to regain custody of children. Jasmine confided to her case worker (not Ann) that she is positive for the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV positive), and someone informed Mary, the executive director of the agency. Mary becomes angry and asks Ann to speak privately with Jasmine to persuade her to tell the other clients in her therapy group that she is HIV positive. Jasmine is also a Type II diabetic, and uses a glucometer in the bathroom at the agency during breaks. Mary feels Jasmine is putting the staff and clients at risk by pricking her finger to test her glucose level. Mary, who is not a trained counselor or social worker, also thinks it would be therapeutic for Jasmine and the other clients if Jasmine shared her HIV status (Herlihy & Corey, 2006).
Harm reduction has become an important concept in substance use treatment and policy in the last few decades, as the United States has increasingly been adopting these policies in a number of different areas (Van Wormer & Davis, 2013). As these policies continue to grow in prevalence, it is important that such practices can be justified through research evidence and ethical principles. While there is debate in the field as to whether or not harm reduction is truly neutral of value judgments (Miller, 2005), chemical addiction professionals must be involved in the ongoing discussion of harm reduction and its relationship to ethics. As this paper will illustrate, there is a large amount of disagreement concerning how direct service professionals, researchers, and policy-makers should understand the values of harm reduction, there are differences in opinion about the role of ethics in harm reduction, there are ethical concerns related to each concept and its implementation, and more needs to be done to unify the voices involved in the discussion of ethics in harm reduction.
What is morality? What is being moral? Is it just being able to make the decision from right and wrong making the right decisions from good and bad? There are many great philopshers who had their own ideas on morality. Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, Aristotle and Virginia Held all had different ideas and or approaches to resolving ethical problems. Though each of them differs from each other they each have their own positive and negative attributes.
Morality can be described as standards of the ideal man, or a law striving for perfection in humans (Spencer, H 1892). Francesca Gino and Cassie Mogilner in their 2013 experiment tested and proved a theory that priming money and time will cause differences in moral attitude. Looking further into this experiment it could be argued that it was not time or money in itself that caused a change in moral behavior, but time and money subconsciously caused a change in self-reflection which influenced ethical behavior. Thus Gino and Mogilner (2013) effectively proved a link between an indirect, yet consistent, link between time, money and morality. By use of imagination it can be deduced that this information could be beneficial in manipulating or even exposing ethical and moral behavior in society, including the possibility of increasing self-awareness to extract ideal behaviours in civilisation.
James Rachels' article, "Morality is Not Relative," is incorrect, he provides arguments that cannot logically be applied or have no bearing on the statement of contention. His argument, seems to favor some of the ideas set forth in cultural relativism, but he has issues with other parts that make cultural relativism what it is.
“Decreased moral standards and ethics related to ignorance to accepted social behavior standards”. Morality is defined as an understanding and distinguishing right and wrong and behaving according to socially accepted standards (The Definition of Morality, 2002). People can be inconsiderate and conflictful. From the assessment, it was evident that some people have lack of respect to other’s personal properties and even their own. Abandoned houses and trash on properties suggest social and moral degradations. Some of the contributing factors might be poverty, unemployment, and mental illnesses. Lack of morality might be a problem that affects other states and even countries. However, in some areas of Spokane, it is evident that people
In “The Essential Agrarian Reader,” Norman Wirzba claims that “it is only as we are faithful to the particularities and demands of place and accept responsibility for our actions in those places, that we can claim to be moral beings at all” ( Wirzba 95). Without recognizing the effects of our actions on a certain place we cannot consider ourselves moral individuals. In this paper, I will argue that this claim is correct because without a sense of accountability, a connection to morality cannot be made.
When faced with the issue of alleviating poverty or saving nature, many would agree with the following statement: as a society we ought to use available resources and funds to help the poor. In his article “Feeding people versus Saving Nature” Rolston opposes this position and asserts his view that there are times when we ought to choose to save nature instead of feeding the poor. I will argue in favor of Rolston’s argument and against those such as Singer, who strongly opposes the notion that preserving nature and allowing people to unnecessarily die is morally wrong. In reality there are many ways in which we can address the issue of global poverty without resorting to destroying natural ecosystems that we are dependent on.
Morality is defined to be the standards of a human behavior and principles that always give a meaning to life and is a must. Today’s youth have shown a massive degradation in the moral values in the modern society. A large number of today’s youth seem to believe that having moral standards is outdated and unfashionable. Several minds are now subtitled with hypocrisy, lust, hatred and so on, which has resulted in a degeneration that arose from the lack of parental influence, open-minded media and peer pressure. Those causes are the main reason of the sorry state of morality between the youth nowadays.