Tell your story of a personal experience with moral courage. Explain a situation or circumstance where you observed or participated in a situation when moral courage was displayed. Review the module notes and readings, and upon why you think when experiencing a conflicting situation. Relate the importance of where one is situated along the stages of moral reasoning and if one is too many stages beyond another individual, what may be the underlying issues of understanding another’s perspective?
Title: A Personal Encounter with Moral Courage: Navigating a Conflicting Situation
Introduction:
Moral courage is a concept that entails the ability to stand up for what is ethically right, even in the face of adversity or potential harm. It is an attribute that is often exhibited in different social contexts, including personal relationships, workplaces, or societal settings. In this essay, I will share a personal experience where I observed moral courage being displayed, analyze the conflict involved, and highlight the significance of considering one’s situational position along the stages of moral reasoning.
Personal Experience:
Several years ago, while working as a research assistant in a renowned pharmaceutical company, I witnessed a remarkable display of moral courage by one of my colleagues, Sarah. Sarah was a dedicated researcher who had been working tirelessly on a project to develop a new drug for a debilitating illness. In the final stages of the project, she discovered potential risks associated with the drug that had not been adequately addressed by the company.
Despite the pressure to meet project deadlines and financial considerations, Sarah chose to confront her superior and voice her concerns about the potential harms of the drug. This required immense moral courage as she risked facing repercussions for challenging the established authority.
Conflict and Moral Reasoning:
This situation involved a significant conflict between the company’s profit-driven goals and Sarah’s ethical responsibility as a researcher to prioritize patient safety. The conflict was exacerbated by the fact that Sarah held a lower position within the hierarchy of the organization, making it challenging for her to challenge her superior’s decisions.
Upon reflection, it is evident that Sarah’s moral reasoning played a critical role in her decision to display moral courage. Drawing upon Lawrence Kohlberg’s stages of moral development, her actions can be best understood within the framework of the post-conventional level, specifically stage six: universal ethical principles. At this stage, individuals act based on their internalized ethical principles, regardless of external consequences or societal norms.
Sarah’s decision to voice her concerns demonstrated a strong commitment to upholding ethical principles, putting the welfare of potential patients above the financial interests of the company. Her actions align with the belief that ethical standards should transcend individual interests and that principles such as justice, fairness, and respect for human rights should guide decision-making.
Understanding Perspectives and Underlying Issues:
Considering the stages of moral reasoning, it is crucial to acknowledge that not all individuals may be at the same level of moral development. This divergence in moral reasoning stages can lead to underlying issues in understanding another person’s perspective.
In the case of Sarah’s confrontation with her superior, it is conceivable that her superior, who may have been operating at a lower stage of moral development, struggled to comprehend the gravity of Sarah’s concerns. According to Kohlberg’s framework, individuals at the pre-conventional level may prioritize self-interest or external rewards, such as financial gain or organizational success, over ethical considerations.
Consequently, when one person is multiple stages beyond another in their moral reasoning, the underlying issue lies in their differential understanding of ethical principles, priorities, and consequences. The greater the discrepancy in moral reasoning stages, the more challenging it becomes for the individuals involved to comprehend each other’s perspectives, risking miscommunication, and potential conflict.
In such situations, employing empathy, active listening, and open dialogue becomes paramount. By seeking to understand each other’s underlying values and bringing forth the rationale behind their decisions, individuals can bridge the gap in moral reasoning stages and foster a deeper appreciation for diverse perspectives.
Conclusion: