Case application. Possibilities of survey methods and projective methods

The methodology is designed to assess the level of development moral consciousness. For this L.Kolberg formulated nine dilemmas, in the evaluation of which the norms of law and morality, as well as values ​​of different levels, collide.

test material

Nine hypothetical dilemmas

Form A

DilemmaIII. In Europe, a woman was dying from a special form of cancer. There was only one drug that the doctors thought could save her. It was a form of radium recently discovered by a pharmacist in the same city. Making the drug was expensive. But the pharmacist charged 10 times more. He paid $400 for the radium and quoted $4,000 for a small dose of radium. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow money and used every legal means, but could only raise about $2,000. He told the pharmacist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or take payment later. But the pharmacist said, "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make good money on it, using all real means." And Heinz decided to break into the pharmacy and steal the medicine.

1. Should Heinz steal the cure?
1. Why yes or no?
2. (The question is posed in order to reveal the moral type of the subject and should be considered optional). Is it good or bad for him to steal the medicine?
1. (The question is posed to reveal the subject's moral type and should be considered optional.) Why is this right or wrong?
3. Does Heinz have an obligation or obligation to steal the drug?
1. Why yes or no?
4. If Heinz didn't love his wife, should he have stolen the medicine for her? (If the subject does not approve of stealing, ask: will there be a difference in his act if he loves or does not love his wife?)
1. Why yes or no?
5. Suppose that it is not his wife who dies, but a stranger. Should Heinz steal the cure for someone else?
1. Why yes or no?
6. (If the subject approves of stealing the medicine for someone else's.) Let's assume it's a pet he loves. Should Heinz steal to save his beloved animal?
1. Why yes or no?
7. Is it important for people to do everything they can to save the life of another?
1. Why yes or no?
8. Stealing is illegal. Is it morally wrong?
1. Why yes or no?
9. In general, should people try to do everything they can to obey the law?
1. Why yes or no?
10. (This question is included to reveal the subject's orientation and should not be considered mandatory.) Thinking about the dilemma again, what would you say is the most responsible thing to do in this situation for Heinz?
1. Why?

(Questions 1 and 2 of Dilemma III 1 are optional. If you don't want to use them, read Dilemma III 1 and its sequel and start with question 3.)

Dilemma III 1. Heinz went to the pharmacy. He stole the medicine and gave it to his wife. The next day there was a report in the newspapers about the robbery. Police officer Mr. Brown, who knew Heinz, read the message. He remembered that he had seen Heinz run from the pharmacy and realized that Heinz had done it. The policeman hesitated whether he should report it.

1. Should Officer Brown report that Heinz did the theft?
1. Why yes or no?
2. Suppose Officer Brown close friend Heinz. Should he then file a report on it?
1. Why yes or no?

Continuation: Officer Brown reported on Heinz. Heinz was arrested and put on trial. The jury was chosen. The job of a jury is to determine whether or not a person is guilty of a crime. The jury finds Heinz guilty. The judge's job is to pass judgment.

1. Should the judge give Heinz a definite punishment or release him?
1. Why is this the best?
2. From the standpoint of society, should people who break the law be punished?
1. Why yes or no?
2. How does this apply to what the judge has to decide?
3. Heinz did what his conscience told him when he stole the medicine. Should the violator of the law be punished if he acted out of conscience?
1. Why yes or no?
4. (This question is posed to reveal the subject's orientation and can be considered optional.) Consider a dilemma: What do you think is the most important thing a judge should do?
1. Why?

(Questions 7-12 are included to elicit the subject's ethical belief system and should not be considered mandatory.)

1. What does the word conscience mean to you? If you were in Heinz's shoes, how would your conscience influence the decision?
2. Heinz must make a moral decision. Should a moral decision be based on feelings, or on deliberation and reflection on what is right and wrong?
3. Is Heinz's problem a moral problem? Why?
1. In general, what makes something a moral issue, or what does the word morality mean to you?
4. If Heinz is going to decide what to do by thinking about what is truly fair, there must be some answer, correct solution. Is there really some correct solution to the moral problems similar problem Heinz, or when people disagree, everyone's opinion is equally valid? Why?
5. How can you know when you've come to a good moral decision? Is there a way of thinking or a method by which a person can arrive at a good or adequate solution?
6. Most believe that thinking and reasoning in science can lead to the right answer. Is this true of the moral decision, or are they different?

DilemmaI. Joe is a 14-year-old boy who really wanted to go to camp. His father promised him that he would be able to go if he earned the money himself. Joe worked hard and saved up the $40 he needed to go to camp, and a little more on top of that. But just before the trip, my father changed his mind. Some of his friends decided to go fishing, and his father did not have enough money. He told Joe to give him the accumulated money. Joe didn't want to give up the trip to the camp and was going to refuse his father.

1. Should Joe refuse to give his father the money?
1. Why yes or no?

(Questions 2 and 3 are intended to determine the moral type of the subject-i and are optional.)

1. Does the father have the right to persuade Joe to give him money?
1. Why yes or no?
2. Does giving money mean that the son is good?
1. Why?
3. Is the fact that Joe made the money himself important in this situation?
1. Why?
4. Joe's father promised that he could go to camp if he could earn the money himself. Is the father's promise the most important thing in this situation?
1. Why?
5. In general, why should a promise be kept?
6. Is it important to keep a promise to someone you don't know well and probably won't see again?
1. Why?
7. What is the most important thing a father should be concerned about in his relationship to his son?
1. Why is this the most important?
8. In general, what should be the authority of the father in relation to the son?
1. Why?
9. What is the most important thing a son should be concerned about in his relationship to his father?
1. Why is this the most important thing?
10. (The next question is aimed at revealing the orientation of the subject and should be considered optional.) What do you think is the most responsible thing that Joe should do in this situation?
1. Why?

Form B

Dilemma IV. One woman had a very severe form of cancer for which there was no cure. Dr. Jefferson knew she had 6 months to live. She was in terrible pain, but she was so weak that a sufficient dose of morphine would have allowed her to die sooner. She was even delirious, but during calm periods she asked the doctor to give her enough morphine to kill her. Although Dr. Jefferson knows that mercy killing is against the law, he considers complying with her request.

1. Should Dr. Jefferson give her a drug that would kill her?
1. Why?
2. (This question is aimed at identifying the moral type of the subject and is not mandatory). Is it right or wrong for him to give a woman a medicine that would make her die?
1. Why is it right or wrong?
3. Should a woman have the right to make the final decision?
1. Why yes or no?
4. The woman is married. Should her husband interfere in the decision?
1. Why?
5. (The next question is optional). What should I do good husband in this situation?
1. Why?
6. Does a person have a duty or an obligation to live when he does not want, but wants to commit suicide?
7. (The next question is optional). Does Dr. Jefferson have a duty or obligation to make medicine available to women?
1. Why?
8. When a pet is severely injured and dies, it is killed to relieve the pain. Does the same thing apply here?
1. Why?
9. It is against the law for a doctor to give a woman medicine. Is it also morally bad?
1. Why?
10. In general, should people do everything they can to obey the law?
1. Why?
2. How does this apply to what Dr. Jefferson should have done?
11. (The next question is about moral orientation and is optional.) As you contemplate the dilemma, what would you say is the most important thing that Dr. Jefferson would do?
1. Why?

(Question 1 of Dilemma IV 1 is optional)

Dilemma IV 1. Dr. Jefferson committed a mercy killing. At this time, Dr. Rogers passed by. He knew the situation and tried to stop Dr. Jefferson, but the cure had already been given. Dr. Rogers hesitated whether he should report Dr. Jefferson.

1. Should Dr. Rogers report Dr. Jefferson?
1. Why?

Continuation: Dr. Rogers reported on Dr. Jefferson. Dr. Jefferson is put on trial. Jury elected. The job of a jury is to determine whether a person is guilty or not guilty of a crime. The jury finds that Dr. Jefferson is guilty. The judge must pass judgment.

1. Should the judge punish Dr. Jefferson or release him?
1. Why do you think this is the best answer?
2. Think in terms of society, should people who break the law be punished?
1. Why yes or no?
2. How does this apply to the referee's decision?
3. The jury finds that Dr. Jefferson is legally guilty of murder. Is it fair or not for the judge to sentence him to death (a legally possible punishment)? Why?
4. Is it right to always pass the death sentence? Why yes or no? Under what conditions should the death sentence be handed down, in your opinion? Why are these conditions important?
5. Dr. Jefferson did what his conscience told him to do when he gave the woman the medicine. Should the violator of the law be punished if he does not act according to his conscience?
1. Why yes or no?
6. (The next question may be optional.) Considering the dilemma again, what would you define as the most responsible thing for a judge?
1. Why?

(Questions 8-13 identify the subject's ethical belief system and are optional.)

1. What does the word conscience mean to you? If you were Dr. Jefferson, what would your conscience tell you when making a decision?
2. Dr. Jefferson must make a moral decision. Should it be based on feeling, or only on reasoning about what is right and wrong?
1. In general, what makes a problem moral, or what does the word "morality" mean to you?
3. If Dr. Jefferson is thinking about what is really right, there must be some right answer. Is there really some correct solution to moral problems like those of Dr. Jefferson, or where everyone's opinion is equally correct? Why?
4. How can you know that you have come to a just moral decision? Is there a way of thinking or a method by which a good or adequate solution can be reached?
5. Most people believe that thinking and reasoning in science can lead to the right answer. Is the same true for moral decisions, or is there a difference?

Dilemma II. Judy is a 12-year-old girl... Her mother promised her that she could go to a special rock concert in their city if she saved money for a ticket by working as a babysitter and saving a little on breakfast. She saved $15 for a ticket, plus an extra $5. But the mother changed her mind and told Judy that she should spend the money on new clothes for school. Judy was disappointed and decided to go to the concert anyway. She bought a ticket and told her mother that she had only earned $5. On Wednesday she went to a performance and told her mother that she had spent the day with a friend. A week later, Judy told her older sister, Louise, that she went to the play, and she lied to her mother. Louise considered telling her mother what Judy had done.

1. Should Louise tell her mother that Judy lied about the money or keep quiet?
1. Why?
2. Hesitating whether to tell or not, Louise thinks about Judy being her sister. Should this influence Judy's decision?
1. Why yes or no?
3. (This moral type question is optional.) Does this story relate to the good daughter's attitude?
1. Why?
4. Does the fact that Judy made the money herself matter in this situation?
1. Why?
5. Judy's mother promised that she could go to the concert if she made money herself. Is the mother's promise the most important thing in this situation?
1. Why yes or no?
6. Why should a promise be kept at all?
7. Is it important to keep a promise to someone you don't know well and probably won't see again?
1. Why?
8. What is the most important thing a mother should take care of in her relationship with her daughter?
1. Why is this the most important thing?
9. In general, what should be the authority of a mother for her daughter?
1. Why?
10. What is the most important thing you think a daughter should take care of in relation to her mother?
1. Why is this thing important?

(The next question is optional.)

1. Reflecting on the dilemma again, what would you say is the most responsible thing to do in this situation to Louise?
1. Why?

Form C

Dilemma V. In Korea, the crew of sailors retreated when meeting with superior enemy forces. The crew crossed the bridge over the river, but the enemy was still mostly on the other side. If someone went to the bridge and blew it up, then the rest of the team, having the time advantage, could probably run away. But the man who stayed behind to blow up the bridge couldn't get away alive. The captain himself is the man who knows best how to lead a retreat. He called for volunteers, but there were none. If he goes on his own, the people probably won't return safely, he's the only one who knows how to lead a retreat.

1. Should the captain have ordered the man to go on the mission, or should he have gone himself?
1. Why?
2. Should a captain send a man (or even use a lottery) when that means sending him to his death?
1. Why?
3. Should the captain have gone himself when that means the people probably won't make it back safely?
1. Why?
4. Does the captain have the right to order a man if he thinks it is the best move?
1. Why?
5. Does the person who received the order have a duty or obligation to go?
1. Why?
6. What makes it necessary to save or protect human life?
1. Why is it important?
2. How does this apply to what the captain should do?
7. (The next question is optional.) Rethinking the dilemma, what would you say is the most important thing for a captain?
1. Why?

Dilemma VIII. In one country in Europe, a poor man named Valjean could not find a job, neither his sister nor his brother could. Having no money, he stole bread and the medicine they needed. He was captured and sentenced to 6 years in prison. After two years, he ran away and began to live in a new place under a different name. He saved up money and gradually built a big factory, paid his workers the highest wages and most He gave his profits to the hospital for people who could not get good medical care. Twenty years passed, and one sailor recognized the owner of the factory, Valjean, as an escaped convict whom the police were looking for in his hometown.

1. Should the sailor have reported Valjean to the police?
1. Why?
2. Does the citizen have a duty or obligation to report a fugitive to the authorities?
1. Why?
3. Suppose Valjean were a close friend of a sailor? Should he then report Valjean?
4. If Valjean was reported and brought to trial, should the judge send him back to hard labor or release him?
1. Why?
5. Think, from the point of view of society, should people who break the law be punished?
1. Why?
2. How does this apply to what the judge should do?
6. Valjean did what his conscience told him to do when he stole bread and medicine. Should the violator of the law be punished if he does not act according to his conscience?
1. Why?
7. (This question is optional.) Rethinking the dilemma, what would you say is the most responsible thing a seafarer should do?
1. Why?

(Questions 8-12 are about the subject's ethical belief system and are not required to determine the moral stage.)

1. What does the word conscience mean to you? If you were Valjean, how would your conscience participate in the decision?
2. Valjean must make a moral decision. Should a moral decision be based on a feeling or inference about right and wrong?
3. Is Valjean's problem a moral problem? Why?
1. In general, what makes a problem moral and what does the word morality mean to you?
4. If Valjean is going to decide what needs to be done by thinking about what is really just, there must be some answer, a right decision. Is there really some correct solution to moral problems like Valjean's dilemma, or when people disagree with each other, everyone's opinion is equally valid? Why?
5. How do you know you've come to a good moral decision? Is there a way of thinking or a method by which a person can arrive at a good or adequate solution?
6. Most people believe that inference or reasoning in science can lead to the correct answer. Is this true for moral decisions, or are they different?

Dilemma VII. Two young men, brothers, got into a difficult situation. They secretly left the city and needed money. Carl, the elder, broke into the store and stole a thousand dollars. Bob, the youngest, went to a retired old man who was known to help people in the city. He told this man that he was very ill and needed a thousand dollars to pay for the operation. Bob asked the man for money and promised that he would give it back when he got better. In fact, Bob was not sick at all and had no intention of returning the money. Although the old man did not know Bob well, he gave him money. So Bob and Carl fled town, each with a thousand dollars.

1. Which is worse: stealing like Carl or cheating like Bob?
1. Why is it worse?
2. What do you think is the worst thing about cheating on an old person?
1. Why is this the worst?
3. In general, why should a promise be kept?
4. Is it important to keep a promise? given to man who you don't know well or will never see again?
1. Why yes or no?
5. Why shouldn't you steal from a store?
6. What is the value or importance of property rights?
7. Should people do everything they can to obey the law?
1. Why yes or no?
8. (The next question is intended to reveal the subject's orientation and should not be considered mandatory.) Was the old man irresponsible in lending Bob the money?
1. Why yes or no?

Theoretical foundations for interpreting test results

L.Kolberg identifies three main levels of development of moral judgments: preconventional, conventional and postconventional.

preconventional level is characterized by egocentricity of moral judgments. Actions are judged primarily on the principle of benefit and on their physical consequences. Good is what gives pleasure (for example, approval); bad is that which causes displeasure (for example, punishment).

Conventional the level of development of moral judgments is achieved when the child accepts the assessments of his reference group: family, class, religious community ... moral standards of this group are assimilated and observed uncritically, as the ultimate truth. Acting in accordance with the rules adopted by the group, you become "good." These rules can also be universal, as, for example, the biblical commandments. But they are not developed by the person himself as a result of his free choice, but are accepted as external constraints or as the norm of the community with which the person identifies himself.

Postconventional the level of development of moral judgments is rare even in adults. As already mentioned, its achievement is possible from the moment of the appearance of hypothetical-deductive thinking (the highest stage of the development of the intellect, according to J. Piaget). This is the level of development of personal moral principles, which may differ from the norms of the reference group, but at the same time have a universal breadth and universality. At this stage we are talking about the search for universal foundations of morality.

At each of these levels of development L.Kolberg identified several stages. The achievement of each of them is possible, according to the author, only in a given sequence. But the rigid binding of stages to age L.Kolberg does not.

Stages of development of moral judgments L.Kolberg:

Sources

• Antsiferova L.I. The connection of moral consciousness with the moral behavior of a person (based on the research of L. Kolberg and his school)// Psychological journal, 1999. V. 20. No. 3. S. 5-17.
• Methodology for assessing the level of development of moral consciousness (L. Kohlberg's dilemmas)/ Diagnostics of emotional and moral development. Ed. and comp. I.B. Dermanova. - SPb., 2002. S.103-112.

(Instead of introduction)

Ethics begins with clarifying what constitutes the phenomenon of moral choice, which poses very difficult and rather unpleasant problems for each of us. Ethics is concerned with the creation and substantiation of ethical systems, giving a person guidelines that help to consciously make this choice and, most importantly, to recognize the situation where this choice is inevitable, since the refusal to make a moral decision is in itself the decision to surrender to circumstances.

Ethics completes identifying common ethical principles, manifested independently of the specific features of a particular ethical system and possessing sufficiently convincing self-evidence.

These three concepts- situation of moral choice, ethical system and ethical principles- allow to outline the subject area of ​​ethics.

In a situation of moral choice, a person performs moral behavior based on partially conscious, partially unconscious guidelines. Awareness and explicit expression of these guidelines is the subject of morality. Morality is not science in the sense that it is doesn't study anything. It only teaches what is proper. In a situation perceived as a situation of moral choice, a person relies on his ideas about morality. Ethics proceeds from the premise that morality exists for granted regardless of subjective perceptions. Ethics studies morality and its foundations within different ethical systems, which come from different premises about the nature of morality, including the premise of real existence morality, without which ethics would be meaningless. In addition, ethics establishes general principles, at least for most ethical systems. (For example, the statement that the destruction of the system of moral guidelines is more dangerous than the violation of any of these guidelines. Or in short: the destruction of morality is morally worse than the violation of morality.)

It is worth noting that it is much easier for people to agree on the question of what is good or bad from the point of view of morality than it is for philosophers to agree on the superiority and validity of one or another ethical system. The general principles of ethics, in turn, cause much less controversy than the problem of substantiating morality.

We'll start by finding out what is moral choice situation for only in these situations is the effect of morality on human actions. To do this, we have to overcome two significant difficulties. The first difficulty is that the real content of the phenomenon of moral choice is very difficult, and most likely impossible to exhaust in concepts. Moreover, it is possible to approach the definition of moral choice, which gives a meaningful idea of ​​it, only based on some simpler concepts. Thus, the discussion of this phenomenon would have to be postponed for a long time.

The second difficulty is that readers of this book will probably have very different ideas about what moral choice is. (This does not mean that they have different moral ideas - they most likely judge the moral quality of a particular choice in a similar way.) By defining this phenomenon too harshly, I risk being rejected by a significant part of future readers. Therefore, I want to start talking about the subject of ethics after I have a certain level of understanding with the reader. And for this it is better to start by contacting personal experience, to that intuition of making difficult moral decisions, which each of us certainly possesses. moral choice consists in the fact that a person has to decide whether some attractive values ​​for us contradict some not fully realized interests of conservation and development self. A moral act is performed contrary to the obvious, makes sacrifice useful and pleasant. In a situation of moral choice, what is good for becoming a person is not only opposed to what is directly useful or pleasurable. The category "good" is opposed even to the category "correct".

The English writer MURIEL SPARK in the story "The Black Madonna" tells the story of a respectable English family where a black child is born. In the eyes of the neighbors, this fact is associated with the fact that his parents are friends with blacks. There are other explanations - natural and supernatural, but the parents decide to give their child to an orphanage, being sure that they are doing the right thing. It is possible that this is true, because parents do not have a golden reserve of love to raise a child that shocks them. But they, in essence, understand that abandoning their child is not good.

They made their moral choice, refusing the test that fell to their lot for the sake of spiritual comfort, for the sake of their life proceeding “correctly” - without unnecessary problems. But still burden of moral choice they have not passed. In their favor, we can say that they at least felt the weight of this burden and are forced to seek justification in their own eyes, evaluating the choice made as the right one.

There are special situations in life when we are offered a set of some possibilities and no considerations or feelings (even the most vague ones) prevent us from choosing what we want at the moment. In such situations, moral choice is out of the question. Several times in my life I have had to eat at the “buffet”, where you yourself have to pick up on a plate from the appetizers standing on the counter what you like. Since what is paid is not the choice made, but the right to enter, then considerations like “Am I allowing myself an unacceptable luxury?” are excluded here. You should have thought about this before, when you pay for the entrance. (However, I did not have to pay.) There was no question of leaving others, because there was enough for everyone. If it is difficult for the reader to imagine a "buffet", then let him imagine a "self-assembled tablecloth". In general, situations when I can without a twinge of conscience choose from the opportunities given to me what I want at the moment are not so frequent. Much more often we have to find ourselves in situations where, along with a sense of the attractiveness of some emerging opportunities, a vague thought emerges, as if from another dimension, that the choice of what attracts our desires is somehow connected with the neglect of the interests of our neighbor and with the loss dignity. We usually dislike the idea that we can look unworthy in the eyes of the environment and even more so in our own. With this often vague, even more often falsely directed thought, a situation of moral choice begins, putting a person before the problem of giving up something attractive to him in order to act according to his conscience, despite quite tangible losses. (Losing good relations or just understanding with society is a serious loss that can interfere with the receipt of vital and very attractive benefits.) The author would be very happy if the reader himself tried to continue this line of reasoning by analyzing different options values ​​in order to be at peace with oneself, the willingness to take a difficult action in order to obtain the approval of others, or because this action, from his point of view, is fair, etc. It is important that the reader himself tries to think through, in in which cases he is ready to admit the existence of a situation of moral choice. I want to formulate some fundamental signs of such a situation.

1. In a situation of moral choice, an internal
her feeling that I should do something different from what I
at the moment I want, but contrary to this.

2. It causes discomfort and requires certain
will efforts. Ultimately, a person does
his will, that is, as he himself wants. But from "I want"
to "I want" a huge distance.

3. Sometimes the environment of the subject expects him to refuse
for him to do as he pleases. But if a person commits an act only because others want it, then this is not yet a moral choice, but a readiness to reckon with the environment, which may itself turn out to be immoral.

4. Moral choice is always associated with the rejection of self
military claims in order to preserve moral
dignity.

5. Moral choice is not remote planning.
future and not a theoretical estimate of how
blowing to do in some possible circumstances. And
both can be postponed indefinitely. Mo-
real choice is made here and now- in circumstance -
wah over which we have no control. Having decided that in the present
adverse conditions should act accordingly
actions, and not according to moral guidelines, postponing the
a real choice for later, the person actually refuses
from a moral act, trying to go with the flow.

I. Kant believed that “evil is simply giving oneself to the spontaneous course of things, the flow. Promiscuity” [Mamardashvili, 1992, p. 150].

The captious reader will notice that I do not give any justification either for these signs, or even for the fact that situations of moral choice really exist. I appeal to experience inner life readers. But it is the study of these situations that constitutes the main nerve of ethics, the essence of its subject matter. The very existence of such situations in the life of an individual is the initial premise of ethics as a science. Any science proceeds from the belief that its subject really exists, and is not the fruit of an empty fantasy. This belief implies a search for reasons, and we will talk about such reasons in the future.

A person may not notice that he is in a situation of moral choice, for two opposite reasons: either he is so bad that he does not even have a vague idea that his claims are not quite worthy; or he is so good that he naturally wants only that which does not violate any moral requirements - does not offend the interests of his neighbors, does not contradict any moral prohibitions and occurs exclusively in the spirit of love relationship to those around you.

I appeal to the reader with a request to do a small experiment on himself - to try to imagine himself as an actor (subject) of the specific everyday situations listed below and decide which of them pose a problem of moral choice for the subject. It does not matter to me what choice the reader makes in these situations. (It is possible that he will choose a possibility that I did not foresee.) All that matters to me is which of them he considers to be situations of moral choice. I will not hide the trick lurking in this issue. This is not a test, true meaning questions should not be clear to the test-taker. If in at least two cases you decide that we are talking about a moral choice, I will assume that for you the situation of moral choice is real. In this case, the book brought to your attention, I hope, will be of interest to you. However, do not rush to put it aside if you have not recognized the reality of moral choice in any of the cases offered to you. It is possible that the study of this book will help you realize this reality. And for the discovery new reality It is well worth the effort to get to know the book.

So, here are some situations for you. About which of them are you ready to say that they pose the problem of moral choice for the subject?

1. Your boss has offered you a very honorable
ness that meets your capabilities and aspirations,
but asked not to disclose this proposal until
incumbent X will be retired,
with whom you have long-standing friendships
and highly respected by you. You have to choose
between consent, refusal and attempt
consult with X, violating a direct order from his superiors.
(It is likely that X will tell his superiors about your
torture, and this is fraught with complications.)

2. The doctor told you that the illness of a loved one
the catch is deadly. You have to decide for yourself
whether to give this diagnosis to the patient.

4. Immediately after the Chernobyl disaster, leadership
The USSR decided not to disseminate information
about the real scale of radioactive danger. She herself
The accident turned out to be a consequence of the decision taken by the management
NPP solutions to conduct an experiment with one of the nuclear
reactors - enter it into a critical mode in order to
obtain useful data on the properties of the reactor. Find
whether the persons responsible for making these decisions
in a situation of moral choice?

5. Mom sent the child to the store for shopping. He
can obediently follow orders or succumb
his natural desire and spend part of the money on
ice cream. Is this choice moral?

6. You are walking down the street in the evening with a heavy object in
hand (for example, a hammer). With you two hooligans attack
yut on a woman. You can pass unnoticed by
try to coax the hooligans, try to influence
on them by force or just hit one of them with a hammer
over the head. Is it a matter of moral choice or only
about choosing an effective action?

7. You have good reason to suspect your
neighbors in what they cook terrorist act in
certain place, but there is no certainty about this.
You can notify by phone about the place and time
the act being prepared, to inform the police the names of the alleged
of terrorists, try to get in touch with them
and dissuade from what was planned, etc. Is it worth it to you
moral issue?

8. You are the only person who can swim well
among those in the boat. The boat capsized and in front of you
You have to choose who to save first. How will change
this situation, if, according to your sense of your strength, it is barely
enough to swim to shore?

9. Imagine that you live in Soviet times
when holding even a small administrative position required membership in the Communist Party. You have a choice: join the CPSU or refuse an attractive promotion prospect for you. (Of course, much depends on how you evaluate membership in the CPSU: do you associate personal responsibility for terror and other crimes with it?) Try to imagine a similar situation of choice in other times in other countries. Remember in what situation and who said the words: "Paris is worth a mass."

10. You pass by a lottery barker inviting you to buy tickets. At the same time, he promises that whoever buys five tickets that did not win, gets the money back. Your choice is simple: buy a certain number of tickets or ignore these calls.

It is easy to see that the lottery is designed in such a way that with a high probability one out of five tickets wins, but the amount of this winning is much less than the price of five tickets. So, the promise to pay damages is built on an easy-to-guess deception. (Otherwise, the organizers would not have received income.) But the question for the reader is not what are his chances of winning. (You can immediately tell that they are much less than the organizers of the lottery.) It is up to the reader to decide whether this situation has moral aspect for its members?

The meaning of the questions posed to the reader is not to decide what should be done in the given situations. These are questions for self-examination, does the reader have any doubts that we are talking about what is due here? My friend had to try on situation number 1 for himself. He, in fact, would like to take the position that the elderly X held at that time. (Now the institution itself is named after him.) My friend called X, who did not hide it senior management, which adversely affected my friend's career and perhaps even the institution itself. This decision did not benefit anyone. In your opinion, did this decision correspond to something objectively due? If you have a doubt, then the concept of moral choice is not alien to you. It is also worth considering the option that my friend silently accepted the proposal of the leadership, but the latter did not hide his consent from X himself. How do you assess this situation?

Ethics does not teach how one should act in situations of moral choice. This is a matter of practical morality. Ethics explores the very phenomenon of the moral situation. It explains the foundations on which morality is based and the logic of moral choice.

Within the framework of ethics, various ethical systems have been created, in which various explanations and standards for moral choice are proposed. In some ethical systems, the emphasis is on the moral assessment of an act - the guidelines for a specific moral choice. In others, the moral qualities of the individual, which must be developed in oneself, are put at the forefront. In some, the ability of a person to make a moral choice is explained on the basis of the natural properties of a person. Others appeal to supernatural factors as prerequisites for the existence of situations of moral choice and their fundamental role in the formation of personality. But in all cases, ethics gives a rational description of the premises and the moral recommendations based on them for each of the ethical systems. Moreover, the comparison of different systems is possible only on rational grounds: by logical analysis of their correspondence to our moral intuition.

One fundamental circumstance should be emphasized. Ethics is united by the unity of the subject, but not by the unity of the approach. Ethical systems are very diverse in their approach to the justification of morality and even understanding the status of morality (morality as a convention, as a product of natural evolution, as a manifestation of a person's connection with extra-natural reality).

However, the criteria for the morality of an act, for all their apparent differences, have a striking similarity at a deep level. It cannot, of course, be said that all ethical systems dictate the same criteria for moral choice. AT ancient society suicide, under certain conditions, was regarded as a virtuous act, while in the Christian moral tradition it is certainly considered a grave sin. Nevertheless, the basic sets of moral prohibitions are so similar that the expression "universal morality" does not seem meaningless. Even in assessments of suicide, one can find something in common in ancient and Christian traditions.

Ancient morality did not consider suicide in itself good choice, but rather saw it as self-sacrifice for something more important than one's own life. self-sacrifice respected in a variety of cultural traditions. The only question is what and for what is it permissible to sacrifice? In the officer environment of pre-revolutionary Russia, an officer who sullied the honor of his uniform could shoot himself. This was considered a worthy way out, despite the condemnation of the Church. AT Soviet army at the funeral of a suicide, it was not customary to give honors due to an officer. However, I myself witnessed how colleagues achieved the lifting of this ban when they buried a colonel who committed suicide after he learned about the impending painful death from cancer.

Ethical systems offer and justify not only guidelines for how one should behave in situations of moral choice. They explain the nature of these situations in various ways. They develop ideas about the virtues, that is, the states of the soul that contribute to the commission of worthy actions from the point of view of moral criteria. Unlike moral actions, these ideas can diverge sharply in different ethical systems. For example, the Stoic ideal of apathy (insensitivity to suffering) is sharply opposed to the Christian idea of ​​the meaning of one's own suffering and the significance of compassion for others. In Christian ethics, it is not considered shameful to scream in pain, but it is very shameful to be insensitive to the suffering of others.

Various ethical systems put forward various points of view on the essence of the situation of moral choice, and some of them actually deny the reality of choice. Thus they teach not how one should choose, but how to submit to circumstances. Each ethical system develops its own ideas about the moral qualities that a person should develop in himself in order to best cope with the situation of moral choice - real or apparent.

In some ethical systems, the study of the premises and the evaluation of the act performed in situations of moral choice are at the forefront. In others, the emphasis is on the study of virtues - qualities that help to adequately make a choice that confronts a person.

With all the differences in ethical systems and the ideas used in them about the essence of morality and the nature of man, it turns out that it is possible to establish some general principles ethics, from the point of view of which it is possible to evaluate various ethical systems. The fact is that ethics is a philosophical science. As such, it relies primarily on the abilities of the mind, on the rational identification of the "logic" of moral behavior. Philosophy does not reject the existential experience of a person, which is especially significant in the sphere of morality, but seeks to express it in categories accessible to the human mind. This creates a basis for the study of this experience and its influence on the attitude of a person to the problem of moral choice. Religion affects the sphere of morality both through the existential experience of comprehending the truth it reveals, and through the religious teaching that expresses this truth. Moral theology reveals this teaching as the religious basis of the proposed ethical system, and the task of philosophical ethics is to describe this system in such a way that it can be compared with other ethical systems.

The author does not consider it necessary to hide his conviction that the religious ethical system has significant advantages. However, within the framework of philosophical ethics, it is permissible to defend this belief only on the basis of philosophical arguments. We will try to extract these arguments by formulating and substantiating ethical principles, which in themselves do not require support outside the human mind.

The author confines himself to Christian ethics - not because moral guidelines are less pronounced in other religions, but only because he is aware that his own competence is not sufficient to study the ethical component of non-Christian religions.

So my refusal in no way expresses a negative attitude towards these religions, but only a lack of the necessary level of knowledge.

From all that has been said, the following conclusion can be drawn.

The situation of moral choice consists in the fact that the subject is forced to determine his preferences between alternative actions in conditions when the most attractive alternatives for him come into conflict with the absolute good.

Ideas about absolute (moral) good may be different in different ethical systems.

An ethical system is an explicit and motivated doctrine about the nature of moral choice and the criteria for moral good, and its relation to the practice of human behavior.

The history of the development of ethics knows a lot of fairly detailed ethical systems, each of which gives its own picture of the situation of moral choice. But at the same time, some universal characteristics of situations of moral choice, described by different ethical systems, are revealed. Such ethical universals we will call principles or laws, ethics.

CHAPTER 1 THE PREREQUISITES OF MORAL CHOICE

1. FREE WILL

Far from every human action is associated with a choice - a conscious preference for one of the possible acts in a given situation. Sometimes a person performs a certain action without thinking at all about its causes or motives. If he is asked why he reacted this way, he will answer: “Mechanically”, or: “I don’t know”, or something else like that. The first of these answers is the most accurate - it acted like a machine, as circumstances and its internal location required.

Action based on a conscious choice one of a number of possibilities called an act.deed is an action performed as a result of a conscious preference for one of the possibilities presented to a person. An act is the fruit of choosing what a person at a given moment seems to be good, that is, something useful or good for him. Moreover, very often a person finds himself in front of an alternative when he has to choose between this or that good. This choice forces us to evaluate different kinds good. Thus, it is assumed that good has value. This does not mean that the value of this or that good can be objectively measured (expressed as a number). It only means that a person, making his choice, is forced to decide which of the goods he considers has a higher value for him. This decision may depend on the specific situation. For example, saving his own life, a person is able to refuse many benefits that are of high value to him under normal conditions. This means that he considers the preservation of life as a more valuable good than those he is ready to neglect.

Thus, choice presupposes the ability of a person to evaluate different types of good and determine what is of the greatest value for him in a given act of choice. In other words, choice is available only to a rational being, capable of reasoning about values. However, reason alone is not enough. A person can clearly understand what choice is the best in a given situation, but at the same time be unable to decide on it. It takes a will to choose to implement the solution despite external obstacles and internal resistance. It may happen that the choosing subject is bound hand and foot (literally or figuratively) and cannot make the intended choice. In this case, we will consider that the choice is made if the person has firmly decided to act in a certain way and is sure that he will implement his act as soon as an opportunity presents itself. This means that he settled on a certain decision, and does not mentally scroll through all the options again and again in the hope of finding a loophole to abandon the choice made.

Reason and will as prerequisites for choice make a person responsible for his act. He bears the blame for the bad consequences of his deed. We can talk about legal responsibility before the laws adopted in society. In this case, one speaks of guilt before the law or society, on behalf of which the law acts. We can talk about moral responsibility, which can be interpreted as responsibility to specific people, to conscience, to God, or even to oneself. Different ethical systems give different answers to the question “before whom?”. It is only important to realize that responsibility arises only on the condition that a person is able to use his mind and has free will.

Indeed, what responsibility can a madman bear who is unable to distinguish the bad from the good? A criminal who does not control his mind is not subject to punishment, but to treatment. It also removes moral responsibility. If we assume that a person does not have free will, then this means that his actions are entirely determined by the pressure of external conditions and the internal state of his body, which gives rise to natural desires - reflexes. It is meaningless to say about such a person that he wants this or that. It would be more correct to say: "he wants to." We say that we want to eat or sleep, because these desires arise in a person by themselves as feelings of hunger or drowsiness (“eyelids stick together”). On the contrary, it is possible to refrain from sleeping or eating in spite of the mighty “want” only by exerting the will. The will of a person is so free that it can lead to actions directed “against the flow” of events and the pressure of circumstances. At least, this is evidenced by our internal experience. This experience makes us feel responsible for all the actions that we do in word, thought, deed and failure to fulfill our duty. We are responsible both for not recognizing the situation of moral choice at the right moment and “going with the flow”, and for making a bad choice in this situation.

Thus, the ability of a person to act on the basis of free will and the ability of reason to distinguish good from evil form the basis of a moral act. Sin limits the limits of human freedom and the ability to act morally, leaving a person to the mercy of circumstances. This idea about the relationship between freedom and circumstances influencing human behavior was deeply Christian expressed by the “holy doctor” FYODOR PETROVICH (Friedrich Josef) G aaz(1780-1853). He emphasized the presence of a person's free will, but recognized the influence of circumstances pushing to bad deeds. He wrote: “Recognizing this dependence of a person on circumstances does not mean denying in him the ability to correctly judge things, according to their essence, or to consider the will of a person as nothing at all. It would be tantamount to recognizing man - this wonderful creation - as an unfortunate automaton. But it is necessary to point out this dependence already in order to recall how rare real people are between people. This addiction requires an indulgent attitude towards human delusions and weaknesses. In this indulgence, of course, there is little flattering for humanity - but reproaches and censures about such dependence would be unfair and cruel" [Koni, p. 37].

Free will is necessary to be moral - to resist circumstances. But one should take into account how difficult it is to resist the pressure of circumstances and judge them correctly. It is necessary to be condescending to those who cannot afford it, but not to oneself.

It is most likely impossible to prove the existence of free will by the scientific method (at least, by the natural scientific method), because the scientific method itself proceeds from the premise that all events in the world occur in a necessary way due to certain reasons.

free will means that (at least some) actions a person performs not under the influence of inexorable reasons, but due to the fact that the subject wanted to do so. Free will gives a person the ability to do things. If it were not for us, the result of any act of choice would be determined by the reasons acting on the chooser. Thus, the choice would be pure fiction - it seems to a person that he chooses this or that good, but in reality he is a puppet of natural or supernatural forces acting in him. In this case, the very existence of man would be doubtful, for a person is defined exactly the ability to act, and not just like a puppet to obey the puppeteer, pulling strings. Consistent materialism denies free will, because it has no place in the material world. Free will is denied by some religious teachings. However, regardless of the recognition or non-recognition that free will is inherent in man, most philosophers who seriously develop the problems of ethics talk about these problems as if a person makes a choice of his own free will and is responsible for it. So, O.G. Drobnitsky (1933-1973) considered morality as one of the types of normative regulation, including a certain type of prescription and sanctions [Drobnitsky, 1974]. However, prescriptions make sense only when a person is free to fulfill them, and sanctions mean that a person is recognized as responsible for his actions, not to mention that he is recognized as capable of performing actions, and not just forced actions. Drobnitsky singled out specific features of morality as a normative regulation of behavior, believing that in ethics one cannot proceed from internal experience or from “obviousness” such as “duty”, “conscience”, “good”, etc.

We, on the contrary, will proceed from the fact that the idea of good and the feeling of the comparative value of various goods are the evidences which are comprehended by simple common sense. People can be significantly different in the area of ​​sophistication, but in the simple there is much more in common between them than it seems at first glance. This commonality between seemingly very distant people is easily detected with some attention to each other. Therefore, when discussing logic of value choice and places in this logic of moral choice it is legitimate to proceed from ordinary experience, which underlies ordinary common sense.

AT specific situation a person strives for some good that is important for him, but it is important for him not only to achieve the desired good, but also to feel that he is striving for an unconditionally true good. Each of us is interested in having sufficient grounds for positive self-esteem, although not everyone is able to consistently make serious efforts for this. For inner comfort, a person needs not only to receive certain worldly benefits, but also to know that he is correctly oriented in choosing what he wants and makes efforts in the right direction.

Moreover, it is very important to feel that the decisions we make are in line with our actual intentions. Only in this case, external circumstances and our assessment of these circumstances do not violate free will: free consent with the intention that has arisen is adequately embodied in the act. We emphasize that attraction arises as an instinctive “I want to”, and consent is an act of free will.

MORAL LIFE

In addition to the immediate good, the achievement of which a person sets himself as a goal, no less than important role for a person plays the consciousness of the correctness (fairness) of the goal and his own readiness to achieve it with all his might. It can be said that justice(the correctness of the good, the achievement of which is the goal) and heroism(willingness to make serious efforts for this achievement) are themselves goods that carry a reward regardless of success in obtaining the desired good. This latter may be associated with specific benefits, with the provision of certain vital material interests. But the benefit accompanying it is realized in the consciousness of the acting subject as a feeling of spiritual comfort due to gaining the right to a positive moral self-esteem(and in a favorable case, the approval of others).

In fact, we are talking about more: positive self-esteem is only a subjective feeling, as it were, of perfection achieved. The paradox is that moral perfection does not provide, but hinders positive self-esteem, for the higher the moral development, the stricter the requirements for oneself. (No saint can feel like a saint.) So you can derive immediate pleasure from your own improvement, as long as you do not go too far in it. However, a person who has really reached moral heights will not reckon with such a crafty argument.

©2015-2019 site
All rights belong to their authors. This site does not claim authorship, but provides free use.
Page creation date: 2018-01-08

Target: familiarization of students with situations of moral choice and the scheme of the indicative basis for the action of moral and ethical assessment as a basis for the analysis of moral dilemmas; organization of the discussion to identify solutions and arguments of the participants in the discussion.

Age: 11 - 15 years old.

Academic disciplines: humanitarian disciplines (literature, history, social studies, etc.).

Task execution form: group work of students.

Materials: the text of the moral dilemma, a list of questions that set the scheme of the indicative basis for the action of moral and ethical assessment, for students and teachers.

Task description: the class is divided into groups of three people, in which it is proposed to discuss the behavior of the hero and argue their assessment. Then, having united in two groups, the guys exchange opinions and discuss all the arguments “for” and “against”. Then again two groups are combined until the class is divided into two large groups. In this final step (using the whiteboard) the arguments are presented and summarized - which arguments are more persuasive and why.

Option: holding a discussion. Students in groups are invited in advance to take a position of support or condemnation of the hero of the situation and discuss their arguments.

To structure the position of students, a scheme is proposed for the indicative basis of the action of moral and ethical assessment for the analysis of the situation (A. I. Podolsky, O. A. Karabanova, 2000). The diagram contains questions, the answers to which will help to analyze the proposed situation:

1. What happens in this situation?

2. Who are the participants in the situation?

3. What are the interests and goals of the participants in the situation? Do the goals and interests of the participants in the situation coincide or contradict each other?

4. Do the participants' actions violate the moral norm(s)? If yes, what is the norm? (Name the norm.)

5. Who can be harmed by the violation of the norm? (If different norms are violated, then who will suffer if one norm is violated, who will suffer from the violation of another?)

6. Who is the offender? (If several norms are violated, then who is the violator of each of them?)

7. What can participants do in this situation? (List some behaviors.)

8. What consequences can this or that act (behavior option) have for the participants? 9. What feelings (guilt, shame, pride, compassion, resentment, etc.) do the characters experience? 10. How should each of its participants act in this situation? What would you do in their place?

Instruction: The lesson is devoted to situations of moral choice. Such situations are called moral dilemmas. Their peculiarity lies in the fact that students need to make a choice in a situation where there is no single right decision, but there are different decisions that take into account different interests. The teacher reads the text and asks the students to answer the questions.

The teacher, in the event that the students' answers are presented in writing, needs to pay attention to the argumentation of the act (that is, answer the question "why?"). The answer should point to the principle underlying the decision. The teacher should provoke students to voice different points of view on the situation with the obligatory argumentation of their position, and also focus students' attention on the ambiguity of a particular solution to the problem.

Evaluation criteria:

correspondence of answers to the levels of development of moral consciousness;

the ability to listen to the arguments of other participants in the discussion and take them into account in their position;

analysis of students' arguments in accordance with the level of development of moral consciousness.

14 situations are presented - moral dilemmas, which are devoted to different contexts of interaction: 7 - situations of interaction "teenager - peer" and 6 - situations of interaction "teenager - adult".

Task examples

Via survey methods- conversations, questionnaires, surveys, tests - with students, the educator can find out how they understand the meaning of individual concepts (for example, kind, lazy, etc.), which will make it possible to draw a conclusion about the level of formation of moral ideas and moral norms. This information forms the basis of the cognitive criterion.

Conversation. Efficiency diagnostic conversation depends on many factors:

• how it is prepared and how skillfully carried out;
• whether the experimenter has the necessary experience and psychological preparation;
• personal attractiveness of the experimenter;
• whether a trusting relationship has been established between the participants in the dialogue;
• how great is the frankness or, conversely, the suspicion of the subject;
• what is the emotional and motivational significance of the subjects that the conversation concerns, etc.

The preparation of the conversation and the development of its methodology require:

• goal setting;
• determining its content;
• thoughtful wording of questions;
• identifying signs of observation during the conversation:
  • - behavior during the conversation;
  • - the desire to avoid answering a particular question;
  • - move the conversation to another topic;
  • - involuntary pause;
  • - features of facial expressions and speech;
  • - emotional reactions;
  • - intonation, etc.;
• choice of ways to fix the results of the conversation.

The answers to the questions of the conversation and the collected indirect data will help to objectively evaluate the information received in the conversation.

The structure and nature of the conversation are determined by the content and form of questions that are asked by the respondents. Therefore, the central link in the development of a conversation is the selection and formulation of questions, a preliminary check of their availability and reliability. In preparation for a diagnostic conversation, the experimenter selects target and supporting questions; the first are aimed at the implementation of the task - to identify ideas, concepts, rules, judgments, relationships, assessments of the subject; the latter help to carry on a conversation. It is also useful to think in advance about possible conversation strategies and ways to record the results of the conversation (voice recorder, stenographer assistant, video recording, form.

Questionnaire – research method based on special written questionnaires – questionnaires. Unlike tests (which, as a rule, belong to the group of methods of a high level of formalization), questionnaires, in principle, can be compiled by any researcher. Advantages of the method - in the possibility of coverage immediately a large number test subjects. However, this advantage is not always realized when questioning younger students who are not yet able to read, understand questions, and simply concentrate when answering them. Therefore, questionnaires in elementary school are often conducted individually, when the student orally answers the questions of the questionnaire, and the teacher (or his assistant) writes down the answers of the respondent in the questionnaire form.

Projective Methods. Individual indicators are extracted from special methods of pedagogical diagnostics, which are directly aimed at identifying personal characteristics- the so-called meters. These are the methods of an unfinished thesis, "Goldfish", "Flower-Semitsvetik", drawing tests, moral dilemmas, an unfinished story and others. The results obtained with their help will give an idea of ​​the core integral properties of the child's personality, which are expressed in the unity of knowledge, attitudes, dominant motives of behavior and actions and, as a rule, constitute the content of the motivational-need criterion of a schoolchild's upbringing.

Methodology "Flower-Semitsvetik" allows you to judge the direction of the child. Children read or remember the fairy tale by V. Kataev "Flower-Semitsvetik" (it is possible to watch an animated film or a filmstrip). After that, each student receives a seven-color flower made of paper. The teacher offers to write down your desires on the petals. The results are processed according to the following scheme: write out desires that are repeated or close in meaning; group: material (to have things, toys), moral (to have animals and take care of them, etc.), cognitive (to learn something, become someone), destructive (to break, throw away, etc.). After processing the results, it is recommended to have a conversation with the children, emphasizing the social importance of moral and cognitive desires.

Method "Goldfish". Children are invited to name three wishes that they can ask for. goldfish. For an introduction to a fabulous game situation, it is recommended to use game elements-symbols. Children's answers are analyzed according to the following scheme: for themselves, for others (for relatives or for people in general).

Modified technique of T. E. Konnikova. Allows you to establish the predominant motive of behavior. Students are asked to complete three tasks of the same difficulty. Schoolchildren were informed that for the first task the mark would be put in the journal; for the second - to be taken into account when performing a group task; for the third - at the request of the student. Assignments are evaluated on the quality of execution, accuracy of design, completeness of data. Comparing the results of the three tasks, the teacher can determine which motive prevails in children, what is most important for the child as a whole: the business itself, the interests of the team, or their own success. On the basis of this, the coordination of the social motivation of their behavior with the personal one is also determined.

The technique of unfinished sentences. The teacher asks the children to continue the sentences in writing: "I am most happy when ...", "I am most upset when ...", etc. An oral version of this technique is possible, when children are asked to answer the question: "What do you think , what pleases, and what upsets your mother, parents, teachers? When analyzing the answers, it is possible to identify joys and sorrows associated with own life, the life of the team (class, circle, etc.).

Discussing a moral dilemma with students. Dilemma (from Greek δι, δις - twice - λήμμα, taken, from λαμβαίνω - I take), the literal translation "twice taken", "taken from both sides" is a kind of syllogism, representing a choice of two assumptions, while both possible assumptions are convenient . The teacher offers students pre-prepared moral dilemmas that are personally significant for them. Then he organizes a diagnostic conversation, during which it becomes possible to learn about the moral preferences and arguments of children.

Examples

The boy accidentally witnesses how his friend took someone else's thing, which the owner begins to look for. What should an unwitting witness to a theft do?

The boy was given for his birthday mobile phone. He is very happy and wants to brag to his friend, but he knows that he cannot even dream of such a thing. What's the best way to do it?

Mom asks her daughter to stay with her little brother, as she needs to go shopping. Girlfriends are waiting for the girl to discuss some important problems. What choice will she make?

A group of classmates at recess loudly and cheerfully discussing their affairs. Everyone laughs, remembering some incident, and do not notice that a newcomer is standing on the sidelines, who has no one to talk to. How to proceed?

Let's open method of using moral dilemmas in the diagnosis of education of younger schoolchildren by example.

Dilemma: Mom asks her daughter to stay with her little brother because she has to go shopping. Girlfriends are waiting for the girl to discuss some important problems.

Diagnostic conversation with younger students has the following structure.

• 1. The teacher asks the children to tell if they themselves have been in a similar situation or observed it. He proposes to discuss both possible outcomes of the situation, answering the questions:
  • what feelings will arise in mother, girl, her friends in one or another outcome;
  • what will mom, girlfriends say with this or that outcome?

The meaning of this block of questions is that the teacher finds out to what extent schoolchildren are able to focus on the emotions and feelings of others (an indicator of decentration as an indicator of the well-being of moral development).

• 2. The teacher invites students to take turns answering the questions:
  • what choice will she make;
  • how would you do?

This moral dilemma discussion block shows the level of moral dilemma resolution. There are three options.

A: The student does not give an answer - he cannot single out the moral content of the situation. The level of moral development is low.

B: "The girl needs to go to her friends" - entertainment is stronger than duty to mom.

Q: "A girl needs to obey her mother, stay and help her" - may indicate both the conformity (obedience) of the child, and the formation of the norm of actions.

Answers B and C do not characterize the moral level of the children interviewed; these answers need clarification, which the teacher receives through the third block of questions of the diagnostic conversation.

3. The teacher asks the children to explain the girl's motives: why she does this. There are also several possible answers for children.

A: "Mom will punish", "Mom will forbid something" - the motives of power, fear of punishment.

B: "The girl needs to go to her friends, because they need to complete a common homework"and other answers of the same type. The respondent in the case is guided by prosocial behavior and the moral norm of helping her mother, but comes up with weighty motives to justify their violation by the girl. (Motives of this kind are called instrumental exchange motivation.)

Q: "You need to stay because mom will be upset" interpersonal conformity motivation.

G: “Mom always needs help”, “If mom asks, you can’t go to your friends. How could it be otherwise?” - unconditional compliance with the norm as a rule. High level of moral development.

Thus, when solving the considered moral dilemma, the teacher is not limited to a simple (linear) question of what should be done in the described case. As we have seen, a monosyllabic choice of the respondent does not fully reveal the level of his moral maturation. To more accurately identify this level, the teacher uses several blocks of questions:

• clarifies the respondent's answer;
• asks for a detailed answer;
• clarifies the motives for choosing an answer;
• asks children to talk about the feelings and emotions of the characters;
• invites students to imagine how the characters will behave further;
• wondering how the children themselves acted in similar situations

The indicators obtained in diagnostic studies correlate with the criteria, and this allows us to formulate certain characteristics child or a group of children as a whole. However, a novice teacher should be warned about caution when handling the empirical data obtained.

First, it is necessary to keep in mind the situational nature and selectivity, and sometimes the insincerity of the child's answers to the tasks of the methodology. As a result, you can get an accidentally or deliberately distorted picture.

Secondly, as a rule, any methodology provides for a subjective interpretation of indicators. One and the same answer to a question of methodology can be interpreted differently by different experimenters.

Thirdly, the results obtained should by no means be regarded as a sentence to the child, a final judgment on his personal qualities, but only as a reason for further educational work.

In addition to the meters proposed in the paragraph, we present a list of methods recommended for use in educational work in elementary school.

• Methodology "Conversation about the school" (modified version of T. A. Nezhnova, D. B. Elkonin, A. L. Venger).
• Motivation Questionnaire.
• Methodology for identifying the nature of success/failure attribution.
• Tasks for assessing the assimilation of the norm of mutual assistance; taking into account the motives of the characters in solving a moral dilemma; to identify the level of moral decentration;
• Questionnaire "Evaluate the act" (differentiation of conventional and moral norms according to E. Turiel, modified by E. A. Kurganova and O. A. Karabanova, 2004).
• Task "Left and right sides" (J. Piaget).
• Method "Who is right?" (G. A. Tsukerman and others).
• Task "Mittens" (G. A. Zuckerman).
• Modified social distance scale by E. Bogardus.