Write the reasons behind a moral verdict, not just the verdict

When you reach a moral conclusion, write down the reasons you gave yourself and check what norm and what problem those reasons rest on.

Warum es wirkt

Kohlberg’s measures do not score the verdict. Bataglia and colleagues describe the Moral Judgment Interview as a way to identify the problem, the norm and the element a person uses in their answers, and the predominant stage is proposed by analyzing the answers to follow-up questions after each dilemma. Writing the reasons out applies that logic to yourself and makes visible which norm is doing the work.

So gehst du vor

1. Write the moral conclusion you have reached in one sentence.
2. Under it, list every reason you would give if someone asked why, one per line.
3. For each reason, write what norm it appeals to (for example, fairness, loyalty, obedience, a promise, a person’s welfare).
4. Circle any reason you can only justify with "everyone does it" or "it’s the rule," and decide whether it is a reason or only a habit.

Evidenz

Bataglia, Morais and Lepre (2010) describe the Moral Judgment Interview, the instrument Kohlberg’s stage scoring is built on, as identifying the problem, the norm and the element used in a person’s answers. The predominant stage is proposed from analysis of the answers to follow-up questions after each dilemma, not from the answer itself. Rest, Narvaez, Thoma and Bebeau (1999) describe DIT2, a revised objective test of moral judgment in the same research tradition, with validity checks on age and education differences; this practice does not use it. The practice applies the scoring logic to self-reflection and has not been tested as an intervention. (mechanistic)

The scoring in the source is done by trained raters on a structured interview. Writing your own reasons is a reflective exercise that cannot place you at a stage.

Quellen

• Bataglia, P. U. R., Morais, A. de, & Lepre, R. M. (2010). A teoria de Kohlberg sobre o desenvolvimento do raciocínio moral e os instrumentos de avaliação de juízo e competência moral em uso no Brasil. Estudos de Psicologia, 15(1), 25–32.
• Rest, J. R., Narvaez, D., Thoma, S. J., & Bebeau, M. J. (1999). DIT2: Devising and testing a revised instrument of moral judgment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 644–659.

Häufiger Fehler

Writing justifications after the fact that make a decision sound principled. The useful question is whether you would have given the same reason before you knew the outcome you wanted.