Trump’s Trumpeting Triumph

Election of Donald Trump and Democracy

I have two observations to make for the election of Donald Trump to the president’s office in he United States. First there is a certain sense of bewilderment in general public as well as the intelligentsia, they ask this question: “How can this possibly happen?”, “This is the doom of America” among other things. The arguments that are generally given are he is white-supremacist etc. And one of the major reasons for people to not expect him to win was that major media houses were against him. They portrayed a very peculiar negative picture of him through and through the last few months of campaign. Anything he said was scrutinized and all kinds of people were supposed to be against him. But how did we know this all? It was through the very same media houses that were biased against him. Can you really expect the media houses to give us an accurate description of ground reality when their entire aim was to derail his campaign. So what happened is that the entire rhetoric that was built upon against him didn’t stand actually reflect what the pulse on the ground was. People had different moods and different agendas on mind. And they were frustrated with the nexus that they thought was reason behind their miseries. So all this so called appeal to the “logic” or “reason” of the people to see Trump stood for (according to the media houses) and not vote for him had no takers. All those attempts by his followers were seen as hollow and shallow attempts to demean and demonify Trump. And in the final days to the election the shrillness only increased. Each attempt by a new group or a new person to vilify Trump was seen as desperate attempts to keep him out of power. He was the one who could do something, who promised to do something. He was the hero America needed to be great again. In contrast to this Hillary Clinton’s campaign can be seen as an ass saving campaign. She was caught in many hiccups, but managed to balance the possible derailment of her campaign, be it her emails or other things. The very fact that she managed to come to finals bating Sanders, in spite of so many problems itself reeked of crookedness for many. The entire anti-Trump rhetoric, instead of helping her, hurt her. So for his supporters there was no appeal to reason against him as they were already convinced beyond doubt that he is the person, and at the same time attempts to stop him were seen as conspiracies of the old system. The intelligentsia rhetoric was hollow and appeal to reason was a treason.

The Indian Election of 2014 had a similar trend. In this Narendra Modi was the candidate (also right wing). In this case also we see that the appeal to reason seen as a treason. Though he did not promise a wall, but tall promises were nonetheless made. The entire image was manipulated as if he will deliver all the things in a jiffy, when elected. We see similar bashing of the intelligentsia in this case also, the rhetoric also went overboard by calling anyone not agreeing with their tag line as anti-national, which continues till day.

For those particularly in intelligentsia lament at Trump’s victory as “Democracy has lost”, they are missing a very crucial aspect. The election of Trump actually shows the true nature of democracy. It is literally the rule of the people. And if more people think a particular candidate is good for them they will choose him. To claim it as a “Dark day” is to question the democratic process itself. These same people would have been perhaps happy if Hillary Clinton was selected. But then this for me is just changing of the goalposts when you have lost an argument. If you cannot convince people to vote for someone, it is not loss for democracy, rather it is the way it operates. The democratic process cannot remain correct if some candidate wins and problematic when someone else wins, of course under the assumption that these are fair elections, not rigged ones. This for me reflects obliviousness for the obviousness of democracy.

Free Press and Democracy

A free press is an essential part of a democratic system. In a society like ours, with its stark inequalities, only a media free of government and corporate pressures can ensure that the voiceless are heard. What we are seeing currently is not just blatant collusion between the media and big business but also a deliberate obliteration of much of what happens to the millions who live on the margins.

via Economic and Political Weekly

This is what Media Lens has to say about the BBC which is supposed to be in public interest and impartial.

Instead of providing responsible, public-service journalism, the BBC acts as a conduit for government propaganda. It is particularly noxious that the organisation relentlessly channels the state’s supposedly benign intentions abroad. This is the diet of daily bias and distortion we are all fed. When will BBC heads roll for that?

But isn’t this true of the media in India also? Or elsewhere in the world for that matter. Tehelka reports that many of the barons of power also control the local media in newly formed state of Chattisgad. And what is the use of controlling media when they are not used for gains. When the so called free media becomes a part of the political parties we cannot be sure of what they report.

If the Congress has Naveen Jindal, the BJP has Ajay Sancheti. If the Congress has the Lokmat, the BJP has the Hari Bhoomi. Barring coal, in which both the Centre and the states had their hands in the till, in the case of other mineral resources, the real corruption lies in the states.

It is not that people do not use media for their own gain, media is used for spreading ideology, there are many mouthpiece outlets for political parties and others which propagate the ideas. But what is worst is that the masquerade that many media houses put on themselves claiming to be honest and working in public interest, and people at large believe them, being obliviousto the fact that these very media houses are the ones who are power brokers and very much in the filth as corporates and politicians. A recent example of this was the Radia tapes.

The complete blackout of the Niira Radia tapes by the entire broadcast media and most of the major English newspapers paints a truer picture of corruption in the country than the talk shows in the various news channels and the breast-beating in all the newspapers about the 2G, CWG, Adarsh, and other scams.

via|G. Sampath – DNA

It was not until the non-main-stream media began to show up too much, there was some coverage given. But the very fact that the accused are in complete denial of what happened is what is disturbing. We usually held names like Barkha Dutt, Vir Sanghvi well but these tapes just show how much they are in the filth of what they pretend to expose. From then on, I have given up on NDTV as a reliable source, which earlier I thought it was. But then what do you trust?

At the same time, it is worth noting that neither Barkha nor any of the other journalists whose names have come up have denied that those conversations took place. So why not let the reader or TV viewer read or listen to the transcripts and decide whether Dutt and Sanghvi’s conversations with Radia are a part of “normal journalistic duties” or amount to pimping for politicians and business houses? Or perhaps they were doing social service for the Congress? Play the tapes on your show, na, Ms Dutt, instead of tweeting about them? Why not let ‘We, The People’ decide, instead of you deciding for us all?

via|G. Sampath – DNA

The media blackout of particular events is what I find disturbing. What it shows the kind of camaraderie that exists between different media houses and their corporate and political cronies. That basically means that the news, sorry the Breaking News that you see is like a managed play, with directors and writers deciding what people see, hear and think. In Marathi novel (Ithink it was Swami (स्वामी) by Ranjit Desai) I had read a sentence which fits these situations well, it reads:

मी मारल्या सारखे करतो, तु रडल्या सारखे कर.

( I will feign to hit, you feign to cry.)

This creates an illusion about real problems. Most of the News channels that are beamed in India follow this line. Put all the focus on some non-issues, or twist them from certain angles so that why all this happens remains oblivious to the viewers. If our media was after all serious about the issues that they present, they would have seen to it that things are done.

Many a times what I have also found reading reports on various different news services is that they are same. I mean many a times they are word to word same, as if the reports have been written at one place and distributed. I do not have links right now, but will update this post when I do. This again creates a picture that what news we see is heavily filtered, and sometimes flavours are added to create sensationalism. And the icing is that we all think this is genuine, with “Free Press in A Democracy”. Orwell had a foresight about this as well:

Of course, print will continue to be used, and it is interesting to speculate what kinds of reading matter would survive in a rigidly totalitarian society. Newspapers will presumably continue until television technique reaches a higher level, but apart from newspapers it is doubtful even now whether the great mass of people in the industrialized countries feel the need for any kind of literature. They are unwilling, at any rate, to spend anywhere near as much on reading matter as they spend on several other recreations. Probably novels and stories will be completely superseded by film and radio productions. Or perhaps some kind of low grade sensational fiction will survive, produced by a sort of conveyor-belt process that reduces human initiative to the minimum.

via The Prevention of Literature | George Orwell

The only reason I see that India is feudal and corrupt is that the so called Free Press was never able to take up the challenge to the nexus, and ultimately now has become a part of it.

In our age, the idea of intellectual liberty is under attack from two directions. On the one side are its theoretical enemies, the apologists of totalitarianism, and on the other its immediate, practical enemies, monopoly and bureaucracy.

via The Prevention of Literature | George Orwell

Though there are dissidents here and there, this now has become global phenomena, with the Indian media people just following the suit. And if this is the case, what difference does it make whether you are living in a democracy or a totalitarian state?

And Orwell wraps it up thus:

A totalitarian society which succeeded in perpetuating itself would probably set up a schizophrenic system of thought, in which the laws of common sense held good in everyday life and in certain exact sciences, but could be disregarded by the politician, the historian, and the sociologist. Already there are countless people who would think it scandalous to falsify a scientific textbook, but would see nothing wrong in falsifying an historical fact. It is at the point where literature and politics cross that totalitarianism exerts its greatest pressure on the intellectual.

via The Prevention of Literature | George Orwell

 

The PhD Octopus

Thus, we at Harvard are proud of the number of candidates whom we reject, and of
the inability of men who are not distingues in intellect to pass our tests.

This is something the American philosopher and psychologist William James wrote in the Harvard Monthly of March 1903 The Ph.D. Octopus.

Brilliancy and originality by themselves won’t save a thesis for the doctorate; it must also exhibit a heavy technical apparatus of learning; and this our candidate had neglected to bring to bear.

To our surprise we were given to understand in reply that the quality per se of the man signified nothing in this connection, and that the three magical letters were the thing seriously required. The College had always gloried in a list of faculty members who bore the doctor’s title, and to make a gap in the galaxy, and admit a common fox without a tail, would be a degradation impossible to be thought of.

"This must be a terribly distinguished crowd,-- their titles shine like the stars in the 
firmament; Ph.D.'s, S.D.'s, and Litt.D.'s bespangle the page as if they were sprinkled 
over it from a pepper caster."

“No instructor who is not a Doctor” has become a maxim in the smaller institutions which represent demand; and in each of the larger ones which represent supply, the same belief in decorated scholarship expresses itself in two antagonistic passions, one for multiplying as much as possible the annual output of doctors, the other for raising the standard of difficulty in passing, so that the Ph.D. of the special institution shall carry a higher blaze of distinction than it does elsewhere. Thus, we at Harvard are proud of the number of candidates whom we reject, and of the inability of men who are not distingues in intellect to pass our tests.

But the institutionizing on a large scale of any natural combination of need and motive always tends to run into technicality and to develop a tyrannical Machine with unforeseen powers of exclusion and corruption.

First of all, is not our growing tendency to appoint no instructors who are not also doctors an instance of pure sham? Will any one pretend for a moment that the doctor’s degree is a guarantee that its possessor will be successful as a teacher? Notoriously his moral, social, and personal characteristics may utterly disqualify him for success in the class-room; and of these characteristics his doctor’s examination is unable to take any account whatever. Certain bare human beings will always be better candidates for a given place than all the doctor-applicants on hand; and to exclude the former by a rigid rule, and in the end to have to sift the latter by private inquiry into their personal peculiarities among those who know them, just as if they were not doctors at all, is to stultify one’s own procedure.

The truth is that the Doctor-Monopoly in teaching, which is becoming so rooted an American custom, can show no serious grounds whatsoever for itself in reason. As it actually prevails and grows in vogue among us, it is due to childish motives exclusively. In reality it is but a sham, a bauble, a dodge, whereby to decorate the catalogues of schools and colleges.

We advertise our “schools” and send out our degree-requirements, knowing well that aspirants of all sorts will be attracted, and at the same time we set a standard which intends to pass no man who has not native intellectual distinction.

It forms an interesting reading considering this is what we are exactly doing and what is happening around us. For example the rule that prevents permanent appointments in colleges if the candidate is without a PhD. Or for that matter the ‘stamping’ that happens if you are from a so called privileged institute.

As the first quote that I have used from the article, summarizes the way our society recognize academic talent. If you are the selected ones from 10,000 odd people then indeed you are smart and the institute that selects you is indeed greatest. The ratio of the people applying for the courses to the ones that are actually accepted forms a good indicator of the ‘quality’ of the institute. The same institutes when choosing a faculty would apply even higher standards and even more people with decorations, on the list.

A self referential post for others

This post is for those who are reading this :Post!
When you read this post, you will know it is meant for you!

You can fool all people for some time.

You can fool some people for all the time.

But, you cannot fool all the people for all the time.

Hope that the message reaches those for whom it is meant!

That is for those people who are reading this post!!

You anyway are wasting your time by reading this sort of trash written by me!!!

A Woman’s Snare…

They chatter with one man,
Look at another with amorous gestures;
And in their minds think of yet another,
Who then is loved by a woman?

From: Bhartrihari [7th Century]

When you read these lines, the immediate thing that you want to do is to find a woman in your memory lanes that fits the above bill. One will perhaps find not one, but many. But, perhaps this also applies to men, in fact I think they are more likely to do so, if you accept the explanations from evolutionary psychology and comparative psychology.

In evolutionary psychology they say that the males want to produce as many offspring as possible. So they try to mate with as many females as possible, many times the quality does not matter, only quantity does. This is so because the males do not have to invest [sic] a lot in mating. The analogy that is often given to the sperm production in males is to spam mails that hit your mailbox daily. Even if one in 10 million makes it, your job is done. But for the females the bodily investment is much larger. So females they say prefer quality over quantity. After the copulation it is the female who has to bear the child, and the responsibility of male becomes minimal. Imagine if a human male copulated daily with a fertile female, which I guess one can, how many children can he produce in a life time? Perhaps in thousands. Similarly if we think of human females producing children when they can, that is taking into consideration their biology; perhaps one child in a year, considering all other factors, the total number will be max at 2 dozen or so. So it is the males who would are more likely to be mating more than women to produce children and that too with many different ones, if they have the capabilities.

This particular observation is not general, and of course does not apply to all species. There are species of sea-horse in which the males rear the young ones, in almost all birds the rearing of offspring is the joint responsibility of the couple. In animals who have social structures, as in case of humans and monkeys, the young ones are raised socially.

But we being humans, do not copulate just for procreation, we do also copulate for recreation [of ourselves that is]. They say that dolphins and chimps are the only other creatures which do so, no wonder they are called intelligent. All other animals copulate when their natural cycle tells them to. So in this light of recreational copulation the above verses acquire a different meaning. There are women and men who copulate and want to copulate for recreation, it is perhaps their nature to do so, but perhaps they are bound too strongly by the social sanctions that surround them.

The next question to ask is that is it right for them to do so?

Well, the answer depends on what one thinks of such social norms. Are they to be followed in to to, or they have an interpretation dependent logic.

The answer is something that I do not know…

PS: Perhaps the essay might sound silly, it is; I have to expand on certain sections.

Humans as Fermions

Humans as Fermions

* The Fermions

  Fermions are one set of fundamental particles and the other one are
  bosons. The distinguishing factor between bosons and fermions is
  that the fermions have half integral spins, whereas the boson have
  integral spins. Their names suggest that the bosons were discovered
  by S N Bose, an Indian physicist and fermions by E Fermi. Now
  another this is that the fermions follow what is known as the Pauli
  exclusion principle. That is to say you cannot have two fermions
  which have all the quantum numbers same.

The Pauli exclusion principle is a quantum mechanical principle formulated by the Austrian physicist Wolfgang Pauli in 1925. In its simplest form for electrons in a single atom, it states that no two electrons can have the same four quantum numbers; that is, if n, l, and ml are the same, ms must be different such that the electrons have opposite spins. More generally, no two identical fermions (particles with half-integer spin) may occupy the same quantum state simultaneously. A more rigorous statement of this principle is that for two identical fermions, the total wave function is anti-symmetric.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle

And electrons are fermions It is this principle which decides the electronic
  configuration in atoms. The filling up principle or the aufbau
  principle works according to the exclusion principle. So when near
  to each other the electrons will tend to have different quantum
  numbers. If all the quantum numbers are same for a given pair of
  electrons, then they must have the spins opposite. But now if a
  third electron is to be arranged in the same orbit, it simple cannot
  be accommodate; it has to go in a different orbit. So that the
  electrons behave, as if they do not like the proximity of each
  other.

* Local trains
  Now when observing humans when they are in a crowded environment
  like a local train in Mumbai, I feel that the humans do behave
  exactly like fermions. That is to say that they do not like the
  proximity of each other, just like the electron do not like
  proximity of each other in the electronic orbits. I have observed
  this many a times in the local trains. Usually the trains are very
  crowded. Even to get a position to stand comfortably is a privilege,
  especially in the peak hours.

  When you board the train at the starting station like the VT, then
  what follows is closely analogous to filling up of the electronic
  orbitals in the atom. The seats that are usually taken first are the
  window seats. In the atom it would correspond to the first filling
  of the principal quantum number. In the window seats also the
  preference is to the seats for the windows which face the incoming
  air, that is facing towards the direction of travel.

  Then the seats are filled in the order of least occupancy. People
  want to sit at the seats which are least occupied. Normally the
  seats can take 3 people, and 4 with a bit of difficulty. But the
  norm is that 4 people are seated on a single seat. Once all the seats
  are filled up to 4 occupants, then people tend to stand in between
  the seats. The analogy does not extend to the people who are
  standing at the doors, there it is more like an ensemble of free
  particles, which are jumping in and out of the compartments.

  So coming back to the seating arrangements what I have observed is
  that once the seats are filled with 4 occupants. That is the maximum
  that our ‘seat’ orbital can take. The rest are occupied in between
  states. They are like virtual states, ready to jump into the empty
  seats as soon as one gets empty.

* The Law of 3 
  Lets assume that the people standing in between are like the
  electron sea in metals. Now lets assume a situation in which there
  are a few people who are standing in between seats and all the seats
  are seated by 4 people. Now lets see what happens when one of the
  person who is sitting stands up to get off the train. As soon as the
  seat gets empty, one of the persons who is standing goes to fill in
  the empty seat. As more and more people get off, the people who are
  standing take up their seats. Finally we reach a state when there
  are no more people who left are standing. Now all the seats have
  four seated occupants. Now if a single person gets up. There is one
  seat with just three people, but people don’t tend to move to that
  seat. It just not worth the effort, by going from a 4 seated seat
  again to a 4 seated seat, you don’t gain much. So you remain seated
  where ever you are. But if you are one of the people who are seated
  on the seat where the person just left from, you surely feel
  relieved.
 
  Now let us try to visualize the situation if 2 people from a single
  seat leave off. Two people leaving from 2 different seats will not
  help. It has to be 2 people who were seated on the same seat. After
  this what we have is that, there is a seat where only 2 people are
  seated and rest of the seats have 4 people seating on them. As soon
  as this happens, a person from a 4 seater, will try to get to the 2
  seater seat. This results in two 3 seater seats, whereas the rest
  are 4 seaters. Even more if 3 people from the same seat go away, the
  resulting changing of seats by people results in maximizing the
  number of 3 seater seats. This is the law of behavior of people in a
  local train ;). I call it the Law of 3. This just also touches on
  the idea of what is called in psychology as personal space. We
  are comfortable only within a certain distance from each other. And
  make it a point to bring this into existence we make the movements.

  Well this is just a vague analogy, to the actual behavior of the
  fermions is much more involved, but nonetheless the analogy is worth
  observing.

The Dialogue

Purity

Oh I am so pure. Don’t touch me!

Why?

Because you will pollute me.

Who, me?

Yes, you.

But, how can I?

You will, somehow.

Is that so?

Yes.

Okay, then go away.

No, I don’t want to.

Why?

Because I like it here.

But then you will get polluted.

No, I won’t.

Are you sure?

Yes I am.

But what if I touch you? Won’t you get polluted?

I don’t know.

What you don’t know?

I don’t know why I want to stay here. Would you tell me?

I have already told you.

You did not tell me.

Yes I did.

But when?

So many times, but you did not understand.

I did not understand?

Yes you did not.

How can that be? I am a good person at keeping and understanding relationships, how can you say I did not understand when you told me?

Because you did not understand.

Do not make things more complicated for me.

Am I making things complicated?

Yes you are.

I think it is the other way round.

Means?

I think you are making things complicated for everybody.

No I am not.

Yes you are.

But I just want to stay.

And not be touched?

Yes.

That is something you don’t understand.

Means.

It is as simple as this.

As simple as what?

As simple as, you cannot have the cake and eat it too.

Oh yes I can have and eat it too!

This is what you don’t understand.

Oh yes I do, how will I not have the cake and eat it too? That is not an Escheresque impossibility.

Oh yes it is! And this is the precise thing that you are not understand.

But I am not mathematically minded.

You do not have to be mathematically minded to understand this.

So, if I was mathematically minded would I have understood?

Even if you were, I am doubtful whether you would be able to understand. I know of mathematicians who fail to understand this.

So is there no way for me?

Yes there is.

What is it?

Please go away.

But why should I?

Because you don’t belong here, this is my place.

Friends

But cannot I have shelter here? I am all alone and lonely?

Are you really?

Yes I think so.

I don’t think so.

Why?

When you need to talk, you always find people to talk to.

No I don’t. I don’t have any friends left anymore.

Why?

All of them abandoned me.

Why?

I don’t know the reasons. I had been so nice to all of them.

Were you really?

Yes I was?

Then why did they broke up with you?

They tried to wake me up from my dreamworld. A world where all the things that I do were perfect.

But did they do anything wrong then?

Yes they did.

If they tried to wake you from dream world, what wrong they did?

Yes, they did. Trying to wake me up from my dreamworld, was the precisely wrong thing they did.

But how can that be wrong?

Why not, I want to live in a dreamworld, I am so happy there, why wake me up?

But what happens when dream clashes with the real world. They would be shattered, won’t they? You should see Requiem for a Dream, then maybe you will understand.

I am not thinking about that.

That is what your friends tried to tell you.

I don’t think so.

They tried to rob me from what little happiness that I had, and still I have in my dream world.

I think they were concerned about you and your future.

They were not. They were just not happy, because I was happy.

How can you say that?

I just know.

Know what?

That people cannot stand it, when I am happy.

But happy for what?

Happy for anything.

Even living in dream world and making castles in the air?

But I was not making castles in the air?

But your friends thought so?

Did they?

Yes and a lot many of them.

But they wanted to take my dream away from me.

So?

That is not right, everybody has right to their own dream.

Yes they do.

Then why were they after me to abandon my dream.

Because they thought it was not good for you.

But I would like keep my dream, they won’t let me keep it.

At what cost?

At any cost!

Then you have paid the cost.

How?

By abandoning your friends, instead of abandoning your dream.

Is that so?

Yes precisely.

But I thought they left me, not the other way round.

No, it is not so.

Why?

How can be so many people be wrong about your dream?

They are jealous!

Jealous? For what?

For me being happy.

But if they were friends of yours, how can be they jealous of your happiness?

They were not friends to begin with.

Then?

They were just compromises I had made.

Is that so?

Yes.

But then so am I, just a compromise.

I don’t know.

Tell me one thing what is so special about this dream, that you abandoned all your friends for that.

It is an imported dream.

So?

What so? Tell me how many imported dreams you get, a very few indeed.

Ok. Any other specialty of this dream?

Yes.

Tell me about it.

This dream is blind.

What do you mean?

Yes, the dream cannot see people, as it is blind as bat, especially during day time.

And yet you want to hold on to it?

Yes because it is my dream, and it cannot hurt me in any way.

Since you have made [and will eventually make] so many sacrifices for your dream, I think it must be worth those sacrifices you have made.

I don’t know.

What do you mean?

I am not so sure whether the dream will be worth the sacrifices I have made.

They why did you make them?

Well this is my life, and I don’t need you ir anybody to tell me what to do with it.

But you only had asked about it?

Did I?

Yes you did?

Well don’t tell me then, what to do with my life and my dream. They are mine and I won’t tolerate any interference with it.

Even if it ruins you?

Yes. And what do you care? As I have already told you, it is my life. So stay away from it!

But that is what I am precisely asking you to do.

Meta-Thinking

What do you mean? I do not understand?

To stay away from me.

I cannot.

You cannot.

Why?

Because you do not capacity or the ability to think about what other person is thinking.

How can you say that?

Why not?

I am above the age of formal operational stage of Piaget.

But you still cannot do meta-thinking.

I don’t think so.

How?

I know all your motives and what you want from me. I know all of your kind, and what they want from my kind.

Is that so?

Yes.

Then tell me what do I want from you?

You and all your kind are all the same.

Ok. Agreed. And I am proud of it.

How can you say that?

Why, is it not my life? Can’t I do anything with it, the way I want.

Not when I am involved.

Is it not hypocritical of you, to say this?

No it is not.

Why?

Because I am special, everybody should take care of me.

What makes you special?

My charms!

I am not charmed any more.

It is not possible!

Why?

You cannot…..

I cannot what? It is my life and my place, I can, and I do.

So?

So just stay away.

But I have told you, I don’t want to stay away.

Then abandon your dream, but still then I am not sure of allowing you to .

Don’t tell me what to do with my life.

Ok.

Why are you treating me so?

You should better know. You have the ability to meta-think don’t you?

Ok. So give me reasons.

I have no reasons.

What do you mean you have no reasons?

I have no reasons for my behavior, and even if I have, I am not obliged to share it with you.

Why?

Because there are no reasons, only choices.

Only choices?

Yes.

I don’t understand this.

You made some choices, you did not ask anybody and did not listened to anybody.

So?

So likewise why do you want to interfere with choices that I make?

Because it involves me!

The choices you made involved me.

So what, I have already told you, don’t interfere with my life.

Then I am sorry, you must leave. This is my dream.

Why?

Every place has its rules, if you don’t follow them you don’t belong there.

But I don’t care about rules.

But others do.

So?

Thats why you must leave.

I don’t understand you or your logic.

Is that my problem?

Yes it is, should it be not?

No.

Why?

I have stopped taking responsibilities which are not mine?

Why?

I don’t benefit from them.

But still you should.

Why?

For me.

No way.

Why?

You are not worth it.

You don’t mean it.

Yes I do.

All of you are torturing me.

Are we?

Yes you are.

You are torturing yourself and others also.

How?

You have the ability to meta-think, don’t you? Think about it.

I can’t.

So be it.

Relationships

But we do have a relationship.

You are wrong.

Why?

We had one, we don’t have one anymore.

You can’t do this to me.

Why?

How can you?

How can I what?

Abandon me.

Why should not I?

It is not proper.

Not proper for whom.

For both of us.

Don’t drag me with you.

But what happened to the relationship we had?

It was a one sided one.

What do you mean?

It was all your side of the relationship.

Means?

Only you benefited from this and still are.

How can you say so?

Look at the past and see what have I gained from this.

I don’t know. But why do you need to gain?

Why should I not gain?

You are a good person. Why do you want to gain something from this?

Why I should not?

Then you are exploiting me.

Nobody exploits anybody.

You wanted something from me, but did not give anything in return.

Why should I?

If you don’t are you not selfish?

No, I am not.

You just want to take, what you want, not give anything in return.

Why do you expect any return from me?

Is it no right?

No, when I am involved it is not right.

This is what your problem is.

What??

You are unable to think what others expect from you.

And?

And when sometimes you know, even then you tend to ignore it.

I don’t agree to that.

I had told you already, that you don’t understand.

Enough!

What do you want from me?

Friendship

I want your friendship.

But it cannot be one-sided.

How can you say that it is one-sided?

Well in this case I can give you reasons.

What reasons?

See in any friendship there should be some respect for each other.

Are you saying that I don’t respect you?

Yes, and not only me, but lot of others also.

How?

When you are with someone, somewhere, you are not bothered about them, even if they are your friends.

How can you say that?

When you are with somebody, you just don’t care about them.

What do you mean?

When your dream comes calling, you just ignore who is with you.

No, I don’t.

What does it mean if you leave people stranded in middle of nowhere, when you are happily day-dreaming somewhere else.

I haven’t done this.

Yes you have, and that too many a time.

Who says so?

If it was just me, I would have considered it an exception, but I am not the only one who has suffered.

You consider your ignoring of me an insult.

Yes, I do.

Bullshit!

I told you, you don’t have meta-thinking.

Okay. This is one where else I do not fit in.

Well you never seem to have time for us.

Yes, I am very busy person, so many things to do.

So is that my fault?

No.

Have I ever said to you, that I don’t have time, when you have asked for some.

I don’t know.

And how many times have you said that you don’t have time, when I wanted some of yours.

I have already told you, I am a busy person, so many things to do.

So am I, but still I do find time when friends call upon me.

So do you mean I am lying.

No.

Then?

What I mean is, if you want, you can always find time.

But I cannot.

Who are you fooling now?

What do you mean?

Don’t you always find time for somethings or someones.

You are again interfering with my life.

So be it, but it bothers me a lot.

How does this bother you?

For me when somebody says, I don’t have time, I feel the person does not want to be with me.

Another one of your crappy things.

Yes, but I am like that.

So what do I do?

I have told you already.

What?

Go away.

But we can talk.

No.

Why?

I don’t want to.

Why?

You have given me enough pain already.

So have you.

Yours were self made.

No you gave them to me.

You could have avoided them easily.

How?

Maybe you should have avoided me.

But that is what I don’t want.

You are not sure what you want and what you don’t.

How can you say that?

You like me and you hate yourself for that, don’t you?

How can you say that?

I can meta-think at least a bit.

Bullshit, these are your self-gratifying thoughts.

So be it, and here the dialogue ends as there is nothing more left to talk about….

adios…….

Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development


Moral Development

In this article the Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development is discussed. Kohlberg’s theory is a direct continuation of the Piaget’s work on the same issues. Kohlberg’s methodology, and why he considers structure more important than content are discussed. The key aspects of the typical reasoning in the moral judgments of each level are discussed. The developmental issues and the criticisms of the theory are presented in the later sections. Also the various aspects of morality being context, culture and time dependent are discussed.

 Introduction
The very word ‘moral’ colloquially means of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior. Moral behavior as understood in a everyday notion, relates to the behavior of an individual which is acceptable in the contemporary society. One thing is for sure that the moral development is not innate, it comes through our own thinking about the moral problems, with inputs from the interactions that we have with the society. There are three major components of morality, viz. the emotional component, cognitive component, behavioral component. The emotional component reflects the fact that we can relate to the harm that we cause to other person. The cognitive component emphasizes the fact that
thinking about the social understanding helps us to make more elaborate judgment’s about actions. Finally the behavioral component relates to the fact that exposure to morally relevant thoughts and feelings can only increase the chances that we will act accordingly but does not guarantee the same.

The biological and the psychoanalytic theories focus on emotional aspect of the morality, cognitive developmental theories on the moral thought, whereas the social learning theory has focused on the behavioral aspects. These theories disagree with what is the primary cause, but the trend that is seen
in the moral development is that a person starts from “externally controlled responses” and goes on to “behavior that is based on inner standards.” In the following sections we mainly consider the theories of moral development of Piaget and Kohlberg which elaborate the cognitive developmental aspect of
morality.
 Piaget’s Theory of Moral Development 

From this perspective the maturity in cognition and social experience lead to the development in the moral understanding of the child as a whole. Piaget’s work on the aspect of the moral development in children is the pioneering work in the cognitive development aspect of morality. For studying the
children’s ideas about morality Piaget depended upon open ended clinical interviews. By clinical interviews it is meant that a child is asked some questions and probed futher in the reasoning behind a particular response given. Piaget in particular asked about the rules in game of marbles. The children were also given stories in which the character’s intentions [ either wrong or right ] and the consequences of such a action were varied. The best kno twn such example is that of John and Henry. In these stories each of the boy breaks different number of cups, one with ‘wrong’ intention and other with no intention. The children are asked the question that which one of them is naughtier and why. The two
stories are like this [1]:

Story A: A little boy who is called John is in his room. He is called to dinner. He goes into the dining room. But behind the door there was a chair, and on the chair there was a tray with fifteen cups on it. John couldn’t have known that there was all this behind the door. He goes in, the door knocks against the tray, bang go the fifteen cups and they all get broken!

Story B: Once there was a little boy whose name was Henry. One day when his mother was out he tried to get some jam out of the cupboard. He climbed up on to a chair and stretched out his arm. But the jam was too high up and he couldn’t reach it and have any. But while he was trying to get it he knocked over a cup. The cup fell down and broke.
The responses that Piaget got from children between ages 5 and 13 he could identify two general stages of the moral understanding viz. heteronomous and autonomous morality.
 Heteronomous Morality [ ∼ 5 – 10 years]
Before the beginning of this stage the children show little understanding that rules govern the social behavior. At about 5 years of age the children enter the period of heteronomous morality and begin to show concern for the rules. The word heteronomous means under the authority of other, the children view the rules as handed down by the authorities. The rules are unvarying and require strict obedience. The factors that limit the child’s understanding according to Piaget are:
1. The unquestioned respect for rules and those enforce them.
2. Egocentrism.

As young children think that view of all the people about the rules are same, their moral understanding is characterized by realism, which means that they regard the rules as “external features of reality, rather than as subjective, internal principles that can be modified at will.” The presence of realism and egocentrism leads to young children focussing on the objective consequences rather than the intent. In the stories about John and Henry, John is considered more naughty because he broke more cups, even if he did not wrong intent in doing so. Another thing that the children having heteronomous morality believe in is the concept of immanent justice i.e. they believe that wrong doing always leads to punishment. The punishment thus received is inescapable and can be through a variety of events.

Autonomous Morality [ ∼ 10 years and above]
The autonomous morality is the next stage in Piaget’s theory of moral development. Through the interactions with peers children become aware that people have different views than their own. They realize that intentions are more important than the objective consequences in moral judgments. Thus
in the two stories mentioned, they do not consider John as naughty, even if he broke more cups because he simply did not intend to do so. On the other hand Henry is considered naughty as he has intent to steal the jam, even in the process he broke less cups. The conflicts with peers are settled in mutually beneficial ways. The concept of reciprocity is developed in children. By reciprocity it is meant that, “they express the same concern for the welfare of  others as they do for themselves.” The most familiar expression of reciprocity is the Golden Rule:

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Reciprocity is the main driving force in the understanding of children in autonomous morality. Children realize that, “rules are flexible, socially agreed on principles that can be revised to suit the will of the majority.” The children can question the logic of the rules and just do not blindly follow them, they can realize that at times there may be good reasons to break a rule. Punishment are also seen in the light of principle of reciprocity. The punishment should be meted in an even-handed way to everyone responsible for the offense, thus guaranteeing justice for all.

Evaluation of Piaget’s Theory
Piaget’s two stage theory gives a general account of the development of the moral understanding in children. The essential aspects of the theory relate with Piaget’s view that child’s development in general goes through a stagewise manner dependent on the age. The followup studies indicate the conclusions of Piaget that “moral understanding is supported by cognitive maturity, release from adult authority, and peer interaction. We now consider some aspects of this theory that have been questioned.

Intentions and Moral Judgments


Considering the stories of John and Henry, they present a biased view of child’s reasoning as more damage is coupled with good intentions and vice versa. If the same scenario is presented on the same grounds of damage, even the younger children can judge the ill intentioned person as naughtier. Also by the age of 4 years children are able to recognize the difference between lying and truthfulness, two morally relevant intentional behaviors. Thus the capacity to consider intentions appears in children much earlier than Piaget believed a deeper understanding does not arise till they reach autonomous morality.
Reasoning About Authority

Piaget assumed that heteronomous children assume the authority of adults with unquestioned respect, but studies have revealed the contrary. The preschoolers judge stealing, hitting as wrong regardless of the opinions of authority. Also peers can be regarded as authorities, e.g. a class captain. Thus “young children’s concepts of authority do not focus solely on status and power.” Contrary to
this many factors are responsible at an earlier age than assumed by Piaget, these factors include, “the attributes of the individual, the type of behavior to be controlled, and the context in which it occurs.

Stagewise Progression

Another aspect of Piaget’s theory is that characterstics associated with each stage do not correlate very highly, as would be expected if each stage represented a “general unifying organization of moral
judgments.” Thus child’s moral thought appears as “patchwork of diverse parts.” But to this Piaget recommended that, “the two moralities be viewed as fluid, overlapping ‘phases’ rather than as tightly knit stages.” Also studies indicate that the moral development goes beyond the two stages of Piaget. Kohlberg’s work presented in the later sections is a direct continuation of the Piaget’s work on moral development.

 Kohlberg’s Extension of Piaget’s Theory

Lawrence Kohlberg [1927 – 1987] following Piaget’s work on the aspect of moral development in children began on similar lines the search for stages of moral development and study of how moral understanding is intimately tied to the cognitive growth. The methodology that Kohlberg adopted for the study of moral was same of Piaget viz. the clinical interviews, but instead of asking children to
judge the naughtiness of a character of a story Kohlberg presented children with moral dilemmas. A moral dilemma is “a conflict situation presented to subjects, who are asked to decide both what the main actor should do and why.” In a moral dilemma two moral values are pitched against each other. The conflict in the mind of sub ject with regard to these two moral values, and its subsequent
resolution serves as an index of the moral development. This enables the experimenter to get a better picture of the reasoning behind the moral decisions. The best known moral dilemma is the the ‘Heinz dilemma,’ in which the subject is presented with conflict between two moral values viz. obeying the law [not stealing] and value of human life [saving a dying person] [2]:

Heinz Steals The Drug
In Europe, a woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to make.
He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman’s husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $ 1,000 which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said: “No, I discovered the drug and I’m going to make money from it.” So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man’s store to steal the drug-for his wife. Should the husband
have done that?

In the response received from the sub jects [72 boys of ages 10, 13 and 16 in the core sample] to the moral dilemma presented above Kohlberg was more interested in the structure than the content of the response. So just a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response to the question presented above will not provide us with the reasoning behind this moral judgment. In fact for the first four stages that Kohlberg identified, both the responses are found with different reasoning at each stage. To find out this reasoning the ‘why’ questions are asked and the sub ject is further probed with other related dilemmas. Based on the different response he got from the children Kohlberg was able to classify them into various stages.
Kolhberg was able to identify three general levels and six stages in all for the moral development in children.

Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development

Level I Preconventional Morality
At this level the morality of the person is externally controlled and can be identified with the main features of the Piaget’s heteronomous stage. The children accept the rules of the authority and the actions are judged by the consequences and not the intent. The moral understanding is based on
rewards and punishments.

Stage 1 Obedience and Punishment Orientation
This stage is similar to Piaget’s heteronomous stage of moral thought. The child regards the rules as fixed, handed down by adults which must be obeyed at all costs. The child is unable to take two points of view for the moral dilemma.
The typical pro-stealing and anti-stealing responses are as follows [Taken verbatim from [1]]:
Pro-Stealing: “If you let your wife die, you will get in trouble. You’ll be blamed for not spending money to help her, and there’ll be an investigation of you and the druggist for your wife’s death.”

Anti-Stealing: “You shouldn’t steal the drug because you’ll be caught and send to jail if you do. If you do get away, your conscience would bother you thinking how the police will catch up with you any minute.”

Stage 2 Individualism and Exchange
At this stage the children become aware that different people have different perspectives in a moral dilemma, but this awareness is very concrete. The right action is considered that satisfies ones personal needs. Reciprocity is considered as equal exchange of favors. The typical pro-stealing and anti-stealing responses are as follows:
Pro-Stealing: “The druggist can do what he wants and Heinz can do what he wants to do . . . But if Heinz decides to risk jail to save his wife, it’s his life he’s risking; he can do what he wants with it. And the same goes for the druggist; it’s up to him to decide what he want to do.”

Anti-Stealing: “[Heinz] is running more risk than it’s worth unless he’s so crazy about her he can’t live without her. Neither of them will enjoy life if she’s an invalid.”

Both the stages in the first level talk about punishment, but the perception in each stage is different. Whereas in the first stage punishment is linked with [proves] wrongness of disobedience, in the second stage on the other hand punishment is regarded as “simply a risk that one naturally wants to avoids.”
The stage 2 children are considered to reason at the preconventional level as they think “as isolated individuals rather than as members of society.” Also “they see individuals exchanging favors, but there is still no identification with the values of the family or community.”
 
Level II Conventional Morality

In this level as the name suggests the individuals continue to regard the conformity to social rules as important, but the reason not being self-interest but rather maintaining the “positive human relationships and the societal order.”

Stage 3 Good Interpersonal Relationships
The desire to obey rules in stage 3 is in the context of close inter-personal feelings such as love, trust and concern for others. The main belief is that “people should live up to the expectations of the family and community and behave in ‘good’ ways.” The stage 3 person has a capacity“ to view
a two-person relationship from the vantage point of an impartial, outside observer,” which supports this new approach to morality. The motives are considered to be important than the consequences. As in Piaget’s two stages similarly in Kohlberg’s stages, “there is a shift from unquestioning obedience
to a relativistic outlook and to a concern for good motives. For Kohlberg, however, these shifts occur in three stages rather than two.”
The typical pro-stealing and anti-stealing responses are as follows:
Pro-Stealing: “No one will think you’re bad if you steal the drug, but your family will think you’re an inhuman husband if you don’t. If you let you wife die, you’ll be never be able to look anyone in the face again.”
Anti-Stealing: “It isn’t just the druggist who will think you’re a criminal, everyone else will too. After you steal it, you’ll feel bad thinking how you brought dishonor on your family and yourself; you won’t be able to face anyone again.”
Stage 4 Maintaining the Social Order

In stage 4 person has a intent for the benefit of the society as a whole. The moral judgment and behavior is in the context of maintaining social order and no longer depend on the close ties to others. As the stage 4, “subjects take the moral decisions from the perspective of society as a whole, they think from a full-fledged member-of-society perspective.” The typical pro-stealing and anti-stealing responses are as follows:
Pro-Stealing: “He should steal it. Heinz has a duty to protect his wife’s life; it’s a vow he took in marriage. But it’s wrong to steal, so he would have to take the drug with the idea of paying the druggist for it and accept the penalty for breaking the law later.”

Anti-Stealing: “It’s a natural thing for Heinz to want to save his wife, but it’s still always wrong to steal. You have to follow the rules regardless of how you feel or regardless of the special circumstances. Even if his wife is dying, it’s still his duty as a citizen to obey the law. No one else is allowed to steal, why should he be? If everyone starts breaking the law in a jam, there’d be no civilization, just crime and violence.”

It might at the first glance seem that stage 1 and stage 4 sub jects are giving the similar responses, but the reasoning that the stage 4 is quite elaborative. Stage 1 children cannot elaborate the reasons, except that stealing will lead to jail, stage 4 respondents, on the other hand have a broader conception of the function of societal laws as a whole, which exceeds the capacity of the stage 1 child.
Level III Postconventional Morality

Individuals in this level move beyond the unquestioning support for the rules and the laws of their own society, hence the name. The morality for such individuals is “in terms of abstract principles and values that apply to all situations and societies.” The individuals in this level of moral reasoning with
a pro-stealing answer to the Heinz dilemma, the reasoning being of course different from the previous levels.

Stage 5 Social Contract and Individual Rights

The stage 5 individuals consider the rules as “flexible instruments for furthering human purposes.” They can argue for a change in the societal laws [considered to be unchangeable by the previous stages] when a good enough reason is pressent. At stage 5, people begin to ask, “What makes for a good society?” They begin to think about “rights and values that a society ought to uphold,” and
then see the society from these perspectives.
The typical pro-stealing response is as follows:

Pro-Stealing: “Although there is a law against stealing, the law wasn’t meant to violate a person’s right to life. Taking the drug does violate the law, but Heinz is justified in stealing in this instance. If Heinz is prosecuted in stealing, the law needs to be reinterpreted to take into account situations in which it goes against people’s natural right to keep on living.”

The stage 5 people regard society is “best conceived as a social contract into which people freely enter to work toward the benefit of all.” Even with some differences in the society the stage 5 people believe that rational people in the society would agree on some basic points. “First they would all want certain basic rights, such as liberty and life, to be protected, and second they would want some democratic procedures for changing unfair law and for improving society.

Stage 6 Universal Principles
The stage 5 respondents are strong believers in the democratic process. But during a democratic process he outcomes are not always just for the minority group. Hence Kohlberg believed “that there must be a higher stage–stage 6–which defines the principles by which we achieve justice.” At this highest stage the right action is defined by the self-chosen ethical principles which are valid for the humanity as a whole regardless of societal laws. Most of the social reformers and the moral leaders will fall in the stage 6. The claims of all individuals need to be looked at in an impartial manner respecting basic dignity of all people.
The typical pro-stealing response is as follows:

Pro-Stealing: “If Heinz does not do everything he can to save his wife, then he is putting some value higher that the value of life. It doesn’t make sense to put respect for property above the respect for life itself. [People] could live together without private property at all. Respect for human life and personality is absolute and accordingly [people] have a mutual duty to save one another from dying.”
The stage 6 is called as a theoretical stage as not many individuals are consistently able to respond at this stage. The fact that the moral dilemma presented is not very convincingly able to distinguish between stage 5 and 6 makes this more clear. One issue that can tell the difference between stage 5
from stage 6 is of civil disobedience. Stage 5 believe more in the democratic process so will be less willing to go in for a civil disobedience. The violation of the law is justified only when a right is at stake. In stage 6, in contrast, “a commitment to justice makes the rationale for civil disobedience
stronger and broader.”
 Theoretical Issues

In this section we briefly consider the main theoretical issues regarding the theory. They include the developmental aspects of the theory, the Piagetian stage concept in the context of Kohlberg’s theory.

How Development Occurs

Kohlberg’s views are strongly influenced by the Piagetian framework of child development. The stages of moral development are not seen as a product of maturation i.e. there is no “genetic blueprint” for the stages to occur. The socializing agents do not directly teach new forms of thinking. The stages
that are externally seen are a manifestation of one’s own thinking about moral problems.

Social experiences promote the development of moral thinking, by stimulating our mental processes. When we discuss with others, our view are challenged due to which we are force to think about ‘better’ positions that we can take. The stages of moral development reflect these broader viewpoints. Thus our interactions with the society and our own thought process combined gives us the ability to advance from one stage to the next.

The Stage Concept

As already mentioned Kohlberg being a close follower of Piaget, has taken the stage concept of Piagetian framework criteria very seriously. The following aspects of his theory are shown to be related to the Piagetian framework.

Qualitative Differences

The qualitative differences in the different stages is evident from the different response that is given by the individuals in different stages. Quantitatively the stages do not seem to have much differences.

Structured Wholes

The stages are not just isolated responses present given by the individual, but are a more general patterns of response that are found across many domains. Thus the stages are structured wholes in the sense that they truly depict the whole moral development of the individual which is valid across domains.
Invariant Sequence
The stages according to Kohlberg form an invariant sequence. The stages are skipped or moved in a random order. Mostly the cross-sectional data in which children of various age group were interviewed supports this claim of the invariant stage sequence. But the data from the cross-sectional studies are
not conclusive, as a child at higher age could have possibly skipped some previous stage. To resolve this issue longitudinal studies were undertaken. In longitudinal studies the same children are tested regularly after a period of 3 – 4 years. Almost all children in one of the longitudinal study moved through stages without skipping. Another aspect of moral development is that it is very slow and gradual process.

Hierarchic Integration

The knowledge that is learned at the earlier stages is not lost when the individual advances to the next stage, but is very well present in the individual. The higher stage persons are able to understand the arguments of the lower stage but consider it to be naive. When Kohlberg says that his stages are
hierarchically integrated, he means that people do not lose the insights gained at earlier stages, but integrate them into new, broader frameworks. Thia is a very important concept for Kohlberg because it explains the directional nature of the stage sequence. Since the stage sequence does not have a genetic blueprint, the previous stages must form a ‘platform’ for the next stages to emerge. Thus each new stage provides a broader framework for dealing with moral issues and is thus more cognitively adequate than the prior stage.
The stages of moral development also represent increasingly differentiated structures. The stage 5 people have abstracted the value of life, for example, has become differentiated from other considerations and say that “we ought to value life for its own sake, regardless of its value to authorities (stage
1), its usefulness to oneself (stage 2), the affection it arouses in us (stage 3), or its value within a particular social order (stage 4). Stage 5 sub jects have abstracted this value from other considerations and now treat it as a purely moral ideal.”
Universal Sequence
The sequence for the stages of moral development should be universal according to Kohlberg. By the term universal it is meant that it should be same across all cultures. Since different cultures bring up their children differently this [the universality of the stage sequence] is not naturally expected. Kohlberg’s response is that “different cultures do teach different beliefs, but that his stages refer not
to specific beliefs but to underlying modes of reasoning.”
Cross-cultural research shows that individuals in ‘technologically advanced’ societies move rapidly through the stages of moral development that from the societies which are not. Also in isolated communities nobody goes beyond stage 3. These studies indicate two possibilities, first that societal factors
that help the advancement of the stages are prevalent in the ‘technologically advanced’ societies, second that the method of evaluation is not suited for all cultures. This point is more elaborated upon later.
The number of years an individual completes in a school is an important and deterministic parameter in the moral development of individuals. Studies clearly indicate that the children who are educated higher levels show a better trend of moral development. The reasons for this particular finding could
be the social diversity that is encountered in the college campuses, introduces the people to the issues involving political and cultural groups.

 Moral Thought and Moral Behavior

The moral stages of Kohlberg’s theory do indicate the moral thinking of the persons, but whether this thinking actually translates into a moral behavior remains a question. We can actually be quite advanced in our moral thinking, but when it comes to moral behavior we do not actually are on the same level, this maybe due to practical reasons involved. Infact this is one of the criticisms of the theory. Hence a perfect correlation between moral judgment and moral action is not possible. But Kohlberg has given a particular relation regarding the moral thinking and behavior: “The two should come closer together as individuals move towards higher stages of moral understanding.” The
advancement in moral reasoning is related with many aspects of social behavior, particularly being more prosocial, this is consistent with Kohlberg’s prediction.

Moral Thought and Other Forms Of Cognition

Kohlberg states that moral development depends on cognition and perspective taking in a very specific way. Each moral stage requires certain cognitive and perspective taking abilities but these abilities alone do not guarantee that moral development will occur. Thus these cognitive and perspective taking abilities are deemed to be necessary but not sufficient for the moral development of the individual.
Criticisms

In this section we consider some criticisms about the Kohlberg’s theory. The two main criticisms that the theory faces are of gender bias and of cross-cultural differences. The other include the facts that are already mentioned viz. that moral thought and behavior are different. Also people tend to respond differently in real life and hypothetical situations [this particular aspect was seen during the presentation when asked about the moral dilemma regarding the help in exam]. The theory does not talk about moral development of very young children, where the methodology of moral dilemmas might not work very well. Also many researchers have questioned the very concept of a post conventional morality in Kohlberg’s formulation.

Gender Bias

Females tend to score not very well on the Kohlberg’s scale of moral development, very few females actually went above stage 3 in terms of their scores. The fact that Kohlberg’s stages were obtained from interviews with males, and hence reflect a decidedly male orientation was pointed out by Carol
Gilligan a co-author and associate of Kohlberg. According to Gilligan the advance moral thought for males and females has different ideals. For males the moral thought revolves around rules, rights and abstract principles, whereas for the females the moral thought revolves around interpersonal relations and the ethics of compassion and care. Thus the ‘scale’ of moral development has been ‘calibrated’ from a male perspective and it is improper to judge the moral development of females by this scale. In fact it has been found that the advanced moral thought revolves around rules, rights, and abstract principles.
The ideal for males the ideal of moral reasoning is impersonal justice, in contrast to female ideal of more affiliative ways of living. Women’s morality is more contextualized, it is tied to real, ongoing relationships rather than abstract solutions to hypothetical dilemmas. If these things are taken into account maybe females will score differently on the moral development. This difference is most
apparent when real life situations are given instead of hypothetical dilemmas. Although the current evidence “indicates that justice and caring are not gender specific moralities, Gilligan’s work has had the effect of broadening conceptions of the highly moral person.”
Cross-Cultural Differences

What Kohlberg has essentially done is that he has created a ‘moral yardstick’ with which he intends to measure the morality all the individuals in all cultures. Perhaps it might be the case that the aspects of morality that are rated very highly on Kohlberg’s scale are not considered to be significant in some other cultures. And it might be the case that the moral dilemmas presented for evaluation altogether fail to capture the post-conventional morality present in different cultures. The Kohlberg’s scale is highly Eurocentric [Western] and might fail to consider the aspects of morality that are alien to the European thought. For studying different cultures this ‘moral yardstick’ needs to be ‘re-calibrated’ keeping in mind the particular culture to be studied. Also presenting the same moral dilemma setup in a totally European background might not be a useful idea, the dilemma also needs to be contextualized taking into account the particular culture under study.

Reflections

The moral behavior and thinking in a society represent give us an insight into the philosophy and the culture of a society. The major influences that are responsible for the moral development of the individual according to Kohlberg are the parents, peers, education and the own thought process of the individual. The influence of religion is not at all considered in the Kohlberg’s developmental theory, whereas religion plays a significant role in the development of children at least in the young age. In fact most of the moral judgments that the individuals make are deeply influenced by the religion they follow. In this regard the position of some religion will be different than the other, so a follower of a particular religion will respond to the situation differently.

Let us take an example of clinical death. If asked with a moral dilemma that involves a person opting for clinical death [hence in a sense committing suicide], the responses that we receive are more likely to vary with respect to the religion of the respondents. Another controversial issue that would raise similar concerns is that of abortion [in a sense considered murder]. Another example on similar lines that could be taken is that of a hunter following a wounded prey, and a response can save or end the prey’s life. The responses in this case will depend on the sort of society the individual has been bought up in [vegetarian vs. meat eating].
The responses that we will get for these real life situations, which also touch upon the religious aspect of the moral judgments will be worth noting. For most of the people religion has the topmost priority in the decisions that are taken in their everyday life. Mostly the religious scriptures and hence religious values guide the moral values and hence moral judgments. A striking example in this regard in the Indian context is that of charity. The religion demands that people do daan [alms], and most people do it not because they feel for the poor, but because the religion demands so. Thus the religious values are conclusive many times in making moral judgments. The religious moral values are passed to the
young children through stories and epics [mostly of Level I Morality according to Kohlberg’s scale ] and also through their social interactions. These interactions form the basis of the moral judgment that a child makes in the future, and removing these influences can be very hard, as they can be even found in adults. But these age old morality which religion practices might be in many cases totally out of context and in the comtemporary society not of much value. Even then these cannot be overcome even by adults. A very good example of this the ‘moral police’ that are abound in India and elsewhere. ‘What is moral,’ is interpreted from some twisted interpretation of the so called
‘cultural values.’ Most of these ‘moral police’ don’t seem to put any thought of their own to the issues they consider as ‘immoral,’ instead what somebody says is blindly followed without any remorse. On Kohlberg’s scale the so called ‘moral police’ will be at stage 1.

So by asking morally relevant questions that are in direct conflicting with one’s outdated religious beliefs can really lead to one’s moral development in this regard.
We cannot really compare the moral values of the contemporary society with that of a society in the past. The rights and the principles that were the ‘guiding lights’ for people in the past might not be even considered in the todays society as relevant. Hence to compare the moral judgments of the people in the past with our own contemporary society does not help. Similarly to compare the moral judgments of two different cultures does not provide the index of moral development of a particular culture.

Even in the same culture when the socio-economic differences are vast the things that are ‘morally right’ for some of the individuals will not be considered as same by everybody. In the Indian context a particular example in this regard can be considered is that of the zamindaari system, the feudal system in India. Whereas the zamindaars considered their ‘moral right’ to own and cultivate large lands, this was not considered as right by the laborers. Or in the larger economic context the ‘moral right’ of the capitalists and the ‘moral right’ of workers do not coincide. In the recent past America’s ‘moral right’ for war was
executed by George Bush to wage a war with Iraq, and ma jority of the American public ‘morally’ supported the war without putting their own thought to it. They would also score for stage 1 in Kohlberg’s stages. So the issues which really matter in one’s perception of the different aspect needs to be taken into account when considering the moral stage of the individual. A person in the lower strata of the society might consider stealing from the society as morally justified [because it is due to society that he poor].
Another aspect that needs to be touched in this regard is that of level 6 of the Kohlberg’s stages of development. The trend that Kolhberg presents for a level 6 behavior is seen in many great spiritual leaders of the past. Infact most of the great leaders did regard their own abstract principles above the
societal laws.
When the world colonization began and the European Empires extended beyond the boundaries of Europe, another example of twisted morality can be seen. Many British authors including Rudyard Kipling regarded the Anglo-Saxon race as a race which was destined to rule, thus ‘morally justifying’ their atrocities against others. Thus it was a ‘moral responsibility’ of the British to rule India. We can hence see that the concept of being ‘morally right’ can be entirely context and time dependent.

The moral dilemmas do come in an individuals life very frequently. According to Kohlberg in the resolution of these dilemmas in the most broader sense result in the moral development in this regard. A very nice example of presenting a moral dilemma and bringing up moral development can be seen in the context of Indian independence. Gandhi’s non-violence principle is an example of moral dilemma that brought about the moral development of an entire Empire. On one hand with the non-violent crowds just marching through the country, the British were not ‘morally justified’ in attacking them, on the other hand that people can defy their ‘moral right’ to rule was unbearable for them. The British
became so frustrated by this ‘moral dilemma’ that even with all such military might they could not but defeat a non-violent revolt. The resolution of this ‘moral dilemma’ resulted in the ‘moral development’ of the British Empire, which thereafter lost its ‘moral right’ to rule the world.

 Summary 
As per Kohlberg’s three level, six stage theory, morality changes from concrete towards abstract, principled justifications for moral choices. Each moral stage en-corporates the previous ones and has certain cognitive prerequisites that are necessary for the development to occur. The moral development does not occur until there is a support present at various levels like family, peers, schooling and society at large. Although justice is given a emphasis more than that of care it does not underestimate the moral maturity of females. As the individuals advance through the stages the moral thinking becomes better related to moral behavior.

The index of moral development that is presented by Kohlberg by presenting the subjects with a moral dilemma needs to be taken with respect to the broader social and cultural context that the particular individual represents so that any bias that is present can be effectively eliminated.

References
[1] Laura Berk: Child Development 3rd Ed. Prentice Hall of India 1999
[2] W. C. Crain: Theories of Development Prentice Hall 1985
[3] Wikipedia