Resolving Moral Conflicts within the Just Community 1

2017 ◽  
pp. 71-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence Kohlberg
Keyword(s):  
Moral Conflicts ◽  
Just Community

scholarly journals Editors' Note to the Special Issue-Critical Multicultural Citizenship Education: Student Engagement Toward Building an Equitable Society

2016 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pablo Cortes Ramirez ◽  
Cinthia Salinas ◽  
Terrie Epstein
Keyword(s):  
Social Studies ◽  
Citizenship Education ◽  
Ethnically Diverse ◽  
The Political ◽  
Education Student ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Fundamental Goal ◽  
Just Community ◽  
Multicultural Citizenship

<div class="page" title="Page 1"><div class="section"><div class="layoutArea"><div class="column"><p><span>In this special issue we call attention to the role of "Critical Multicultural Citizenship Education" (CMCE) in schools, societies and global contexts. The fundamental goal of CMCE is to increase not only the students’ awareness of, and participation in, the political aspects of democracy, but also students’ abilities to create and live in an ethnically diverse and just community. CMCE challenges and transforms existing ways in which students engage civically and democratically in local, national, and global contexts. Ten articles in this special issue are grouped by three categories: (1) social studies classrooms and citizenship; (2) community and citizenship; and (3) global contexts and citizenship.</span></p></div></div></div></div>

scholarly journals Vaccine refusal/hesitancy—the ethical point of view

2021 ◽  
Vol 31 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
João Gentil
Keyword(s):  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Vaccination Campaign ◽  
Herd Immunity ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Vaccine Hesitancy ◽  
Moral Conflicts ◽  
Vaccination Programs ◽  
Individual Level ◽  
Vaccine Refusal

Abstract Background In 2019, WHO classified vaccine hesitancy as one of the top 10 threats to global health. Vaccination is an area of excellence in nursing that has gained a new focus and has become a challenge in the provision of care and in the management field. Vaccine hesitation raises questions about mandatory vaccination, individual versus collective freedom that are highlighted in the current context due to the emergence of new vaccines. In this paper, we want to analyze and update knowledge about vaccines hesitancy from an ethical and bioethical perspective. Methods A combination of literature reviews on vaccine refusal/hesitancy, ethics and COVID-19 vaccine confidence, accessed on SciELO and PubMed databases and analysis of documents from General Directorate of Health and Ordem dos Enfermeiros (National Nurses Association). Results Vaccination programs aim is a collective protection. The desirable effects at individual level do not have the same ethical value at collective level, leading to cost-benefit imbalances. Moral conflicts between the individual and the collective, cost-benefit imbalances and the insufficiency of bioethics principles, lead us to the use of other moral values and principles, such as responsibility, solidarity and social justice, as a tool for ethical reflection problems related to COVID-19 vaccines. Conclusions There are no perfect solutions to ethical dilemmas and some optimal solutions could depend the context. In a pandemic situation, one of the most relevant ethical issues is the herd immunity since it leaves public health at risk. Equity and the principle of justice in vaccination campaign are shown daily in the nursing profession.

scholarly journals Moral education: School as a just community

2003 ◽  
pp. 195-221 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ljiljana Miocinovic
Keyword(s):  
Moral Judgment ◽  
Moral Education ◽  
Collective Responsibility ◽  
Cognitive Conflict ◽  
Moral Dilemmas ◽  
Individual Student ◽  
Moral Atmosphere ◽  
Teachers And Students ◽  
Just Community ◽  
Principal Method

The paper discusses Kohlberg?s view of moral education, how it was developing and changing over time. Starting from a theoretical postulate that thinking constitutes the essence of morality and from empirical findings of the stage development of moral judgment, in his early works Kohlberg defines moral education as "encouraging the natural course of moral judgment development". As a principal method of work, Kohlberg recommends the encouragement of a cognitive conflict by means of discussing hypothetic moral dilemmas. Criticisms that he is over-intellectualizing moral education, getting acquainted with a collective upbringing in kibbutz's, active participation in work in schools and prisons and finding that moral judgment and acting in everyday life is a response to the prevailing moral atmosphere of a group are leading to the changes in moral education goals and development of a new approach known as "just community". Now a group is in the focus of moral education, not an individual any longer, the major area of studies being group norms and expectations. The "just community" approach does not remain only at the classroom level discussing hypothetical moral dilemmas but directly influences the structure of school justice i.e. its rules and discipline, processes they are passed as well as the rights and duties of both teachers and students. Its goal is no longer to develop moral judgment of an individual student but to develop a group as moral community founded upon the norms of trust, participation and collective responsibility.

scholarly journals Beyond good and bad: Varieties of moral judgment

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
William Jimenez-Leal ◽  
Samuel Murray ◽  
Santiago Amaya ◽  
Sergio Barbosa
Keyword(s):  
Moral Judgment ◽  
Moral Rights ◽  
Character Traits ◽  
Moral Conflicts ◽  
Single Dimension ◽  
The Common ◽  
Qualitative Analyses

We argue that people regularly encounter situations characterized by the presence of moral conflicts among permissible options. These scenarios, which some have called morally charged situations, reflect perceived tensions between moral expectations and moral rights. Studying responses to such situations marks a departure from the common emphasis on sacrificial dilemmas and widespread use of single-dimension measures. In 6 experiments (n=1607), we show that people use a wide conceptual arsenal when assessing actions that can be described as suberogatory (bad but permissible) or supererogatory (good but not required). In Experiment 1 we find that people freely describe actions as suberogatory or supererogatory. Experiment 2 shows that they differentially assess these actions in terms of how permissible, optional, and good they considered them. Experiment 3 tests the use of these evaluative dimensions with sacrificial dilemmas. We found that differences between these categories did not emerge when people respond to dilemmas, even when controlling for trait utilitarian tendencies. By including judgments of blameworthiness and sanction, Experiments 4 and 5 provided additional evidence of the richness sub/super erogatory evaluations. In Experiment 6 people offered their own explanations of their responses. Qualitative analyses revealed that they frequently appeal to character traits, the presence of rights, and the absence of explicit duties. Taken together these results suggest a richer spectrum of both situations and concepts relevant to characterize moral judgment than moral psychologists up to this point have generally recognized. (First three authors contributed equally)

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document