Moral Communication and Moral Values in the Moral Dilemma About Martha and Mary
Education Journal
Volume 9, Issue 3, May 2020, Pages: 80-88
Received: May 15, 2020; Accepted: Jun. 2, 2020; Published: Jun. 20, 2020
Views 242      Downloads 119
Author
Victorita Trif, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania
Article Tools
Follow on us
Abstract
This article aims to investigate the integrity taking into account the relationship between culture and psychology. The conceptual framework is very sophisticated because of the wide range of studies from philosophy, education, psychology, communication, linguistic and semiotics, neurosciences, law, and so on. The multiplicity of efforts to design meta-ethics and the international needs to assume some principles and guidelines reveal the importance of the approach. The text from the Bible about Martha and Mary – a moral dilemma – becomes the start point of the investigation. The text could be considered a story, a case-study in terms of meta-ethics, a problem-solving or a hypothesis to examine moral brain. The qualitative analysis of the findings offer –despite the difficulty of moral reasoning – academically substantial inferences regarding legal decisions. For example, each judicial case could use in ethical reasoning, the similar routes of moral reasoning. The target population (660 students) was invited to critically assess the position of Martha and the position of Mary, then to explain their moral judgment behind the answer. The application stimulates moral thinking and critical thinking. To conclude, moral cognition is related to moral communication. There are various advantages for empirical work taking into account the transferability and the generalizability of findings. It is important that the formula of moral communication pretext can be adapted to suit a wide variety of research situations and various purposes.
Keywords
Moral Communication, Moral Values, Honesty, Moral Dilemma, Moral Education, Moral Paradigm
To cite this article
Victorita Trif, Moral Communication and Moral Values in the Moral Dilemma About Martha and Mary, Education Journal. Special Issue: Education and Moral Values: Authenticity, Countercultures and Standardization or Ethics - A New Chernobyl?. Vol. 9, No. 3, 2020, pp. 80-88. doi: 10.11648/j.edu.20200903.14
Copyright
Copyright © 2020 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
References
[1]
M. Argyle (2000). Psychology and Religion. An Introduction. London & New York: Routledge.
[2]
J. Bruner (2009). Culture of education. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
[3]
H. Gardner (2009). Multiple Approaches to Understanding. in Illeris (ed.), Contemporary Theories of Learning. Learning Theorists... In Their Own Words (pp. 106-115). New York: Routledge.
[4]
V. Trif (2020). Analyzing Paradigms Used in Education and Educational Psychology. New York: IGI Global.
[5]
M. Kaptein (2005). The Six Principles of Managing with Integrity: Practical Guide for Leaders. London: Spiro, (pp. 36).
[6]
V. Trif (2014). A Qualitative Perspective on Integrity. In Journal of Education, Psychology and Social Sciences, volume 2 issue 1, (pp. 38-43).
[7]
M. Delgado., E. Phelps, & T. Robbins (2011). Decision Making, Affect, and Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[8]
A. Sneddon (2011). Like-Minded. Externalism and Moral Psychology. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
[9]
R. Pring, R. (2008). Philosophy and Moral Education. In M. Hand & C. Winstanley (eds.), Philosophy In Schools (pp. 18-40). London and New York: Continuum.
[10]
P. Hirst (1974). Knowledge and the Curriculum: a Collection of Philosophical Papers. London: Routledge.
[11]
L. Tauginiene, E. Butkeviciene, K., Vohland et al. (2020). Citizen Science in the Social Sciences and Humanities: the Power of Interdisciplinarity. Palgrave Communications 6, 89. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-0471-y.
[12]
B. Enke (2019). Kinship, Cooperation, and the Evolution of Moral Systems. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 134, 2. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qiz001 (pages 953-1019)
[13]
J. Amstrong, R. Friesdorf, P. Conway. (2019). Clarifying Gender Differences in Moral Dilemma Judgments: The Complementary Roles of Harm Aversion and Action Aversion. Social Psychological and Personality Science 10, 3 Doi: 10.1177/1948550618755873 (pages 353-363).
[14]
R. O., Salvador (2019). Reexamining the “Discussion” in the Moral Dilemma Discussion. Journal of Business Ethics 156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3626-z (pages 241-256).
[15]
I., Patil, M. M., Zucchelli, W., Campbell, S., Fornasier, F., Calo et al. (2020). Resoning Supports Utilitarian Resolution to Moral Dilemmas across Diverse Measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000281.
ADDRESS
Science Publishing Group
1 Rockefeller Plaza,
10th and 11th Floors,
New York, NY 10020
U.S.A.
Tel: (001)347-983-5186