Ethics of Plagiarism Across Cultures 1 Ethics as a philosophical subject which proposes the study of moral actions, proposes that human beings are endowed with consciousness and it is this awareness along with their values and past experiences (in the form of learning), which give the possibility of knowing oneself and the world around them, and can safely judge their actions by distinctions between good and evil. When ensuring that by its rational nature, human beings act ethically or not, align with what the society dictates, it is worthwhile to also introduce the variable "motivation" in this equation. In this way, the human being aware of his actions, will incur in actions with full knowledge of whether that doing evil or good, depending on intrinsic or extrinsic motivations. According to Bagley and Savage (2010), there are two main schools that explain these events, the Teleological and Deontological schools. Teleological school is based on the consequences, i.e.
In this essay, I will compare and contrast the theories of Piaget and Vygotsky, who both influenced the more scientific approach to analysing the cognitive development process of the child active construction of knowledge, (Flanagan 1996). Both Vygotsky and Piaget were regarded as constructivists in the field of cognitive development, meaning that cognition is the result of mental construction (Davison, 2006). According to constructivists, a person’s ability to learn is affected by the context in which the person is taught, as well as their personal beliefs and attitudes.
Kohlbergs interest in morality derived from the studies of Jean Piaget, who studies the cognitive development in children. He developed his own theory of development from these studies. He put forward three levels or moral reasoning. The first level is pre-conventional, in which a child's decision is based on avoiding punishment and receiving awards. The second level is conventional, where the highest value of society is upholding the rules.
To understand this he began under the assumption that intellectual development is not in what children get wrong, but how they get it wrong. In forming his ideas he assumed that physical and social environment play a role in determining how the child processed the information. In determining how children processed and grew he separated each developmental stage of the child. Piaget believed that intellectual processes are built on the primitive foundations laid in earlier stages of development. Piaget and Vygotsky were both influential in forming a more scientific approach to analysing the cognitive development process of the child active construction of knowledge.
What are the motivating factors that affect our behavior and ultimately persuade us to make a moral decision? It can be said that societal mores, religious beliefs and cultural traditions influence our notion of right and wrong and help guide us through life. These fundamental experiences shape our perception of the world and help us develop our moral principles. With this being said, how do we reconcile the making of a decision that has moral implications and presents us with an ethical dilemma? Webster’s Dictionary defines an ethical dilemma as a situation that often involves an apparent conflict between moral imperatives, in which to obey one would result in transgressing another (“Ethical Dilemma”).
In other words, the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed. (4) The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect. In forming this decision many factors must be weighed and compared, with care and prudence proportionate to the importance of the case. Thus, an effect that benefits or harms society generally has more … DOUBLE EFFECT, PRINCIPLE OF The Principle of Double Effect is a rule of conduct frequently used in moral theology to determine when a person may lawfully perform an action from which two effects will follow, one bad and the other good.
In the book “Moral Matters,” Chapter One, Jan Narveson writes about the two theories in morality: moral relativism and subjectivism. These theories work together to define the concept of Morality, by helping to solve our moral dilemmas, such as to explain the reasoning behind our ability to choose between right and wrong, in establishing how and why we make this choice. Thus, through these theories, we further explore morality between the connection to society and the individual, as well as determining what they have in common. Moral relativism represents the view that there are no objective ethical truths, that moral facts only hold relative to a given individual or society. According to this theory, what is morally good for one person or culture might be morally bad for another, and vice versa: there are no moral absolutes.
Does play matter for social development? If so, why? Play is a means by which children acquire the social skills and social knowledge needed to develop into fully functional, social beings (Feng, 1987). Therefore, it can be argued that play is critical for becoming socially adept, and matters greatly for social development. Whilst this may appear to be a broad statement, the work of psychiatrist Stuart Brown (1969) supports such a claim.
Lev Vygotsky’s theory was based on social/emotional development needs to show demonstration/imagination to allow a child to progress. His belief was based on the kinaesthetic technique as he believed that when children observe someone that is more advanced than them they learn from them and imitate their actions. Lev Vygotsky“...suggested that this silent inner speech and spoken social speech are connected...” (Meggitt et al, 2012. P.80). It is critical to link his theory to practice as it encourages/allows children to communicate with other children using their social skills which they have developed and allows children to build self-confidence.
This is also true of rewards. They are more concerned with the external justifications of their behavior as it relates to a consequence, not an internal justification for change. When we justify behavior by intrinsic motivation there is a lasting effect. While we want children to follow rules, we really want to teach them how to respond appropriately to different situations in life. What happens when the motivations of punishment and/or reward are removed?