BEING GOOD IS HARD
As scientists, we psychologists know very little about changing our values and little about how people become compassionate, generous, trustworthy, forgiving, and altruistic. See an excellent review of what we do know in Mussen and Eisenberg-Berg (1977). Everyone recognizes, of course, that certain individuals and groups, e.g. the Hopi Indians in Arizona, do develop these kind, socially responsible, considerate traits. But how? We aren't sure, but it certainly isn't easy to become an unselfish person. The Hopi family and community, for instance, teach and model a concern for others, cooperation, and having a "Hopi good heart" from early childhood. Likewise, the Israeli kibbutz (Shapira & Madsen, 1969) and the schools in Russia (Bronfenbrenner, 1975) try to teach non-competitive cooperation and communal responsibilities for others, while we in the United States praise individual freedom and achievement, and encourage win-lose competition.
Answer this question: What has happened to the values of caring for others since the collapse of the Soviet Union?
The "cold war" was believed by some to be a great economic experiment between communism and free enterprise. With the 1990 failure of the communist economy, some American's declared total victory for our side (even though we were having serious economic problems too).Let's not conclude that American values were and are superior to Soviet values. The Soviets value their proclaimed cooperative group-orientation, rather then our competitive consider-only-yourself orientation. Thinking people can hardly interpret the "the Cold War" as a great moral victory. That 45-year "war" involved two self-centered military giants who for 45 years wasted trillions on weapons and hundreds of thousands of lives in small wars and rebellions around the world, while a billion people remained hungry, sick, and uneducated. Furthermore, if the United States or any other country now jumps to the conclusion that military might (instead of world-wide democracy) is the best way to peace and justice, the country's leaders need more training as thinkers and as moralists.
Humans, acting alone, are certainly capable of selfish, inconsiderate, hostile acts--witness our overflowing prisons. Many people would cheat others and corporations if they had a chance. A few would torture and kill others, even wipe out an entire country or race or ethnic group (witness Germany, Ireland, Israel, and Bosnia). Many children primarily think of themselves. Colin Turnbull (1972) has described a tribe in Uganda, called the Ik, who are extremely self-centered and downright cruel. Ik parents abandon their children at an early age to fend for themselves or die. Thus, it isn't surprising that all Ik steal whatever they can, even from close relatives, in an effort to survive in a harsh environment. In our culture, we believe in giving our children love, warmth, affection, and meeting their every need; however, as we saw in the introduction, this protected childhood does not guarantee that each child will not steal and cheat, and be kind, just, and generous. We are experimenting, but we haven't discovered yet how to produce good people.
Answer this question: What do you think about the IK Tribe.?
We know there are many good people, like the Hopi Indians. Consider too: Mother Teresa helping the poor in Calcutta or the spouse devoted to a brain-damaged partner or a parent caring for a seriously handicapped child or a passerby who pulls a stranger out of a burning car or a soldier who jumps on a grenade to save his buddies or a donor who gives an organ to prolong life. The list goes on and on, perhaps almost every family has someone who can be turned to in times of trouble. So far as we know, every one of us could become the family helper or, in the right circumstances, become a hero saving lives, helping the poor, insisting that all children be fed, treated, and educated. However, there is no scientific prescription for goodness yet; you have to find your own way. It is vitally important. The world needs more good people.
As humans, we seem to have no basic overriding genetic nature; we seem capable of being good or evil; our unique life experiences seem to draw us in one direction or another. Our moral "decisions" are not a single, simple choice made once and forever, but rather a life-long, continuing, complex, poorly understood by others, and an almost unconscious process. There are so many ways of being good and going astray, so many reasons for behaving each possible way, and so many excuses, denials, or rationalizations that confuse the issues. All these factors make the future for each of us uncertain; we all face the temptations of being bad as well as good.
Cultures, families, and friends seem to influence our morals significantly, but these factors change from time to time. For instance, it has become popular in some sub-cultures to think that you are foolish or naive if you don't lie and cheat, when you can probably get away with it. In college today, in contrast to 50 years ago or in a Honor System, relatively few students would turn in a fellow student for cheating. The student culture, in this sense, has become tolerant of cheating. Yet, lots of people still believe differently. We have the Moral Right and other religious groups who call for the old morals. Robert Frank (1988) says that following the morals of great philosophers and religions--honesty, devotion, commitment, self-sacrifice, empathy, and love--(and not the modern notion that humans are always self-serving) will lead to a better world and to greater personal gain as a trusted, respected, sought-after person. In short, he says it pays for each individual to be moral.
Answer this question: Do you feel you are moral and have good values and why?
The world seemed to be conducting a moral experiment for a while, i.e. competition between two political-moral views: capitalism, a competition, self-oriented, materialistic, live-and-let-live set of values vs. communism, a cooperative, others-oriented, moralistic, care-for-others philosophy. Unfortunately, there were too many uncontrolled variables, so no conclusions could be drawn (although we certainly tried to persuade ourselves that "we won"). Too bad we scientists and our governments aren't doing a better job of honestly assessing the benefits and liabilities of different moral-political-economic approaches. Again, you'll have to do the "research" yourself. Maybe the advocates on both sides don't want to know the facts but just want to put out their propaganda. Certainly, the overall advantage of one view over the other is not obvious: giving and caring for others are commendable acts but competition, independence, and greed are powerful motivations which could benefit us all. You see, the world doesn't even know, yet, which values and motives would benefit the people the most.
Hogan (1973) believes that moral behavior is determined by five factors:  (1) Socialization: becoming aware as a child of society's and parents' rules of conduct for being good. 
(2) Moral judgment: learning to think reasonably about our own ethics and deliberately deciding on our own moral standards. 
(3) Moral feelings: the internalization of our moral beliefs to the degree that we feel shame and guilt when we fail to do what we "should." 
(4) Empathy: the awareness of other people's situation, feelings, and needs so that one is compelled to help those in need. 
(5) Confidence and knowledge: knowing the steps involved in helping others and believing that one is responsible for and capable of helping. 
Answer this questions: Have you ever felt shame and guilt? what happen?
There is not much you can do now about Hogan's first factor--your own upbringing. Even though poor parenting is clearly associated with poor work habits, drug use, gangs, and irresponsibility, you have to accept whatever childhood you had. According to Mussen and Eisenberg-Berg (1977), helpful children usually have nurturent parents who frequently act on their giving, caring nature within the family and with outsiders. These parents set high demands on the child, frequently asking him or her to help or to "take care of" another person, but they do not use "power" in the form of physical force or threats to control their child. Instead, the reasons and ethics for the desired behavior or recommended morals are carefully explained. They point out the "rights" and "wrongs" of the child's daily actions, while living up to their own standards of honesty, concern for others, and fairness. If you were raised in this way, thank your parents. If you weren't, understand your parents, and set about providing yourself with the learning experiences (you can talk to yourself like a parent) you may need to become a helping person.
Answer this questions: Are you a helping person?
There are many factors that influence your daily morality, which you can control. Let's now explore Hogan's second factor--the moral judgments needed to develop a good value system of your own. The best way for you to do this is by starting to draft your own set of beliefs and values as you consider the following sections. At the end of the chapter, you will have an outline for a useful value system.
Writing Your Own Philosophy of Life
According to Jewish custom, a person should write two wills: one to give away property and another to pass on his or her values.
Please answer this questions: What values do you want to live by and have your children adopt?
First, some definitions of common terms. Beliefs are our own expectancies (realistic or not) and understandings (accurate or not) about how things are, such as believing in certain benefits and limitations of education, medicine, science, or religions. Values are our ideas about how things should be, i.e. the ideals we hope to strive for. Values can be divided into desirable life goals (e.g. happiness or success) and guiding principles (e.g. hard working or honesty,). Values could also be ranked in importance from morally crucial, like honesty and freedom and justice, to slight non-moral preferences, like a kind of music or style of dress we prefer.
for now--the great philosophical questions about how the universe was created, whether or not there is a God or life after death, whether you should seek the truth from authorities, personal experience, or through experimentation, and so on. These beliefs are much too complicated to be dealt with in an hour or so (if ever).
Answer this question: Should you seek the truth from authorities, personal experience, or through experimentation. Please write no less than 10 sentences lifes many questions.
Answer these questions: What principles should guide your life? Think about who has lived life closest to your ideals. Buddha? Jesus? Albert Schweitzer? Lincoln? Martin Luther King? A great scientist? A good leader? A caring, helpful person in your community? One of your parents? Why did you make that choice? What are the implications for your philosophy?
Resolve the conflicts among your basic values, such as between seeking personal happiness vs. doing good for others. Does this establish your top priority? Please look below for additional informtion as the Kohlberg's stages of moral development, 
Answer this questions: Write your own philosophy of life--a clear explicit statement of important guiding principles. Not just something that sounds lofty, but realistic, honest guidelines you will try to live by every hour of every day.
Write down no less than 10 principles for your life
WRITING YOUR OWN PHILOSOPHY OF LIFE
Kohlberg's stages of moral development
If you have an understanding of the normal stages of moral development, it should help you to develop or improve upon your own morals or values. This is especially true if the characteristics of highly moral people are clearly described. The following six stages are taken mostly from Piaget (1932), Kohlberg (1975), and Rosen (1980). Stage 1: Respect for power and punishment.   A young child (age 1-5) decides what to do--what is right--according to what he/she wants to do and can do without getting into trouble. To be right, you must be obedient to the people in power and, thus, avoid punishment. Motto: "Might makes right."  
Stage 2: Looking out for #1.
What is your motto?
Children (age 5-10) tend to be self-serving. They lack respect for the rights of others but may give to others on the assumption that they will get as much or more in return. It is more a matter of "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours," instead of loyalty, gratitude, or justice. Motto: "What's in it for me?"  
Stage 3: Being a "Good Boy" or "Nice Girl."   People at this stage (age 8-16) have shifted from pleasing themselves to pleasing important others, often parents, teachers, or friends. They seek approval and conform to someone else's expectations. When they are accused of doing something wrong, their behavior is likely to be justified by saying "everyone else is doing it" or "I didn't intend to hurt anyone." Motto: "I want to be nice."  
Stage 4: Law and order thinking.   The majority of people 16 years old and older have internalized society's rules about how to behave. They feel obligated to conform, not any longer to just family and friends, but also to society's laws and customs. They see it as important to do one's duty to maintain social order. Leaders are assumed to be right; individuals adopt social rules without considering the underlying ethical principles involved. Social control is, therefore, exercised through guilt associated with breaking a rule; the guilt in this case is an automatic emotional response, not a rational reaction of conscience based on moral principles (as in stage 6). People at this stage believe that anyone breaking the rules deserves to be punished and "pay their debt to society." Motto: "I'll do my duty."  
Stage 5: Justice through democracy.   People at this stage recognize the underlying moral purposes that are supposed to be served by laws and social customs; thus, if a law ceases to serve a good purpose, they feel the people in a democracy should get active and change the law. Thought of in this way, democracy becomes a social contract whereby everyone tries continually to create a set of laws that best serves the most people, while protecting the basic rights of everyone. There is respect for the law and a sense of obligation to live by the rules, as long as they were established in a fair manner and fulfill an ethical purpose. Only about 20-25% of today's adults ever reach this stage and most of those that do supposedly only get there after their mid-twenties. Motto: "I'll live by the rules or try to change them."  
Stage 6: Deciding on basic moral principles by which you will live your life and relate to everyone fairly.   These rather rare people have considered many values and have decided on a philosophy of life that truly guides their life. They do not automatically conform to tradition or others' beliefs or even to their own emotions, intuition, or impulsive notions about right and wrong. Stage 6 people carefully choose basic principles to follow, such as caring for and respecting every living thing, feeling that we are all equal and deserve equal opportunities, or, stated differently, the Golden Rule. They are strong enough to act on their values even if others may think they are odd or if their beliefs are against the law, such as refusing to fight in a war. Motto: "I'm true to my values."
General criticism of Kohlberg's Stages
Kohlberg's conception of moral development is based on thinking and logic, not on feelings for others. Surely feelings can not be neglected. Likewise, Kohlberg believed that morals were based on age and "wisdom," rather than real life experience and empathic identification with others. The truth is that children of 3 or 4 can and do empathize with others and try to help. Caring doesn't require Ph. D.-level, middle-aged reasoning! It requires feelings. Coles (1986) describes some impressively moral children and teenagers. Some children have stood up to mobs of unfair adults. Lastly, Kohlberg's focus is on the individual, not on what makes for a moral community. Thus, he doesn't balance a self-orientation as opposed to a group-orientation. He doesn't ask, as the Greeks did, the question "what would accomplish the greatest good for the greatest number of people?" And, he doesn't question, as do the Quakers, the morality of settling issues by voting (resulting in as few as 51% imposing--often with glee--their preferences on the remaining 49%) rather than by consensus (everyone agreeing to a carefully considered compromise). Yet, these stages can be a useful way to begin assessing one's own morals.
Discussion of Kohlberg's Stages 5 & 6
Kohlberg's evaluation of moral decisions was based on the quality of the reasoning behind a person's decision, rather than whether or not some specific behavioral decision was made. The thinking process used by some in stage 6 to decide what is fair and reasonable in a moral dilemma is called "second-order Golden Rule role taking" (Kohlberg, 1984). There are two steps: (1) Understanding how each person involved sees the situation and (2) imagining how each person would feel if placed in each other person's situation. The aim of this empathic process is to find a "reversible" solution, one that would be seen as equally just from each person's perspective and considered fair by a high percentage of rationally thinking people. Example: (1) Imagine the situation of a poor dying patient, her husband, and a druggist who wants $1000.00 profit (10 times its cost) for an effective drug and (2) imagine how each would feel in the other's shoes, e.g. how the patient would feel as the druggist, the druggist as the dying patient, the patient as the husband thinking about stealing the drug, etc. A solution that might result from this process would be for the druggist to give the patient the drug, and the couple, in turn, would agree to pay for it by working part-time for the druggist after the patient gets well. As we will see later, an 11-year-old girl in Gilligan's study (1982) arrived at a similar solution.
Current theorists believe it takes time (40-50 years), experience with different cultures and values, emotional maturity, self-control and self-esteem, considerable thought about values, and/or moral development training to acquire this kind of moral reasoning. I suspect stages 5 and 6 will be achieved at age 12 or 14, when we know enough to provide the proper training and experience at that age. Good but extraordinary examples of stage 6 morality are Jesus Christ (he spoke cogently of universal principles but he died at age 33!), St. Francis of Assisi, Albert Schweitzer, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King (he became a civil rights activist at age 26!), and Sister Teresa of Calcutta. Don't let this awesome list of saintly people scare you or discourage you. Try to become a stage 5 or 6 person by finding some good causes you are willing to argue for, decide what lifestyle you most value, and start doing it.
As you understand these stages better, you may understand more about why you have made certain moral decisions in the past. Also, you will realize that you and everyone else operate on several levels at the same time. For example, you may avoid shoplifting for the fear of punishment (stage 1), you may watch your little brother carefully to be sure he doesn't get more attention than you (stage 2), you may want to impress your parents or a teacher (stage 3), you may unthinkingly enforce school rules as a monitor (stage 4), and you may be active in the women's movement or help support a child in India through CARE (stage 5 or 6). Furthermore, you may find your moral reasoning on one level and your behavior on another: 20% of the people at stage 6 of moral reasoning still conformed (stage 3 or 4) when asked by an authority to hurt another person (Kohlberg, 1984). Likewise, my value system says I should share most of my worldly possessions, but often I don't (partly because most people would think I was weird and stupid).
WRITING YOUR OWN PHILOSOPHY OF LIFE
Are women's values different from men's values?  This section is based in large part on a book by Carol Gilligan (1982), who as a research assistant with Lawrence Kohlberg became aware that women responded differently than men to moral dilemmas. She decided to study these differences more closely rather than disregarding women's views because they don't fit the theory, as some theorists (including Kohlberg) have done, or instead of assuming that women are morally inferior, as some males (including Freud) have done. The moral differences between the sexes are real and important but not clearly understood by most people. For example, using Kohlberg's 6-point moral development scale, women frequently score low, often at stage 3 (where there is an emphasis on interpersonal relationships and helping or pleasing others). Yet, women ordinarily consider themselves just as moral as men if not more so. Let's see if we can clarify our own values by understanding exactly how women's values differ from men's.
According to Kohlberg, the childhood concern of males for "pleasing others" gives way in stage 4 to "living by the rules," in stage 5 a few people "build a better world" and in stage 6 even fewer live by "universal principles of justice." According to Gilligan, females often remain concerned with relationships, progressing as they grow older from pleasing others for personal gain to building close, intimate, selfless, giving relationships in which they do good for others (and get pleasure from doing so). Thus, many women adopt the basic moral principles of the Golden Rule and act on those principles by giving to people in need (which Kohlberg assumes only a few middle-aged men do in stage 6). In short, women's morals seem to develop differently, even though they may end up doing the same things as highly moral men.
answer this question: What are these developmental differences?
Men become much more involved than women in intellectually figuring out what is fair and what are individual rights, such as in making rules (in religion and the family) and laws (in politics). For men, differences of opinion ought to be worked out via logical arguments and courts of law; for women, differences should be worked out by talking to each other, considering each other's viewpoints, and understanding each other's needs. Men are more concerned with becoming independent, "being their own man," being free to do their own thing, and being as successful as they can be. Women tend to be more concerned with fulfilling their responsibilities to others than with assuring their own rights, more involved with building caring relationships than "breaking away" to make their own way, more into helping others than getting ahead themselves. Thus, one can see why women could become concerned that men's vigilant defense of individual rights and "freedom" might undermine our sense of responsibility for others and lead to indifference to others in need.
Men and women: 90% use both care and justice values; however, 65% focus on one value more than the other, as follows:  Men: 93% have a justice focus; 7% have a care focus; 0% have justice absent; 38% have care absent (62% have some care).
Women: 62% have a care focus; 38% have a justice focus; 23% have justice absent; 8% have care absent (92% have some care).
One conclusion: if all our values are to be accurately represented in Congress and the legislatures, half of our representatives should be women. We need their emphasis on caring.
Gilligan illustrates how males and females see the world differently, starting at an early age. Consider the moral dilemma mentioned above of the dying patient and the profit-making druggist. She quotes an 11-year-old male, Jake, who reasons that life is more important than profit, so the husband should steal the medicine. However, an 11-year-old female, Amy, sees the problem as the druggist's lack of sensitivity to the dying patient's needs. She doesn't reason, as Jake does, in terms of the businessman's rights or the husband's moral obligation to steal. Amy simply concludes that the husband shouldn't steal "because it's not right" and the wife shouldn't die either, so all three people will have to talk it over and reach an understanding. Jake and Amy obviously think about the dilemma differently.
Unfortunately, the male moral development theorists, like Kohlberg, would probably consider Amy's answer inferior to Jake's. Indeed, she almost sidesteps the examiner's question: "Should he steal the drug?" To her, that isn't the issue. Instead, she concentrates on finding better ways via relationships, not power, to get the drug. Gilligan, a female moral development theorist, considers both Jake's and Amy's views valuable. Jake relies on individual action (stealing) to avoid a personal confrontation. He sees the situation as an impersonal conflict of individual rights rather than a conflict of personal needs. Jake uses logic (life above profit) and the law (the judge will understand) to decide who is right. Amy is less concerned than Jake with who is most right but seeks a practical solution that will hurt no one very much. Her solution depends on people relating and caring for each other.
Keep in mind that boys must gain their masculine identification by separating from mother, while girls attach and take on the characteristics of mother. Thus, for this reason and others, males may tend to see danger in connecting with others--in getting too close or too dependent on someone or in confronting someone. Doing battle in court is more a man's style. Females may see danger in disconnecting with others--in loneliness or successful advancement or rejection. Intimacy is scary to males but a source of security to females. Autonomy is scary to females but a source of pride to males. To males, human relationships are seen as a hierarchy based on power and status; they want to climb to the top and feel afraid if others get too close to them (the sociobiologists point out the similarity of this view to the male struggle for sexual dominance in many species).
Most men do not have an intimate relationship with a male nor an intimate non-sexual relationship with a female; achievement takes priority over intimacy until mid-life when suddenly males realize what they have been missing. Males identify themselves and their success by their accomplishments; females identify themselves by their relationships. To females, relationships are (or can be) more like a network of safety and care among equals; they want to be in the center of the network and fear getting too far out on the edge (like being caught outside the camp in hostile territory). Women recognize more openly their interdependence on others and see the powerful person as being able and willing to help and nurture others. Men see power as the ability to control others. To males "being responsible" in a relationship means not doing what you want to do out of consideration of others. To females "being responsible" means doing what others are counting on you to do, regardless of what you want to do. There is a difference.   Surely the male concern with individual rights and the female concern with caring for others are both important. Each sex has important contributions to make to moral reasoning, certainly neither sex has a monopoly on morals. The concept of rights is based on the notion of fairness and equal opportunities. This kind of justice is vital. The concept of responsibility for helping others is based on a compassionate understanding of human needs. Loving one another is also vital. Perhaps a combination of
(1) respecting everyone's rights (including one's own),
(2) personal integrity (being true to one's beliefs), and
(3) assuming responsibility for helping others may define moral maturity for all of us--men and women. Justice tells us that everyone should be treated the same; personal caring tells us to do more than just not hurt anyone--we must help everyone who needs it. Women, giving us a different moral perspective from males, can help all of us be more caring, more responsible, and less aggressive. Thus, we all need to "learn to think like a woman" as well as like a man. Think of the changes that might occur if world leaders were committed to justice and to responsible caring, rather than just to defending our rights and possessions with weapons.
Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1