Integral Review

A Transdisciplinary and Transcultural Journal For New Thought, Research, and Praxis

Posts Tagged ‘moral development’

Domains Theory and the Rawlsian Social Contract View of the Impermissibility of Sexual Harassment: The Case of Sexual Harassment by Harvey Weinstein

Albert Erdynast

Abstract: This study examines the sexual predator case of Harvey Weinstein utilizing Erdynast’s Domains Theory (Erdynast & Chen, 2014) and a Rawlsian social contract view to analyze the moral issues emanating from sexual harassment. Employing four task-domains and fourteen moral developmental levels (or, stages) (Erdynast, Chen, & Ikin, 2016), the paper analyzes pertinent moral issues in a case study of Harvey Weinstein. Weinstein’s claim that all sexual acts were consensual is starkly contrasted by the 80+ victims’ competing claims about his sexual harassment of them, sexual assault, sex trafficking, and rape. Evidence in Domain I – factual judgment – is evaluated to assess whether all claimants were acting as free and equal moral persons (Rawls, 1993) as are whether their rights were violated by abuser-protecting laws, statutes and policies. Domain II is the domain of worthwhile interests – in short, conceptions of the good (Rawls, 1993). Using a Rawlsian concept of original position (Rawls, 1971; Rawls, 1999), Domain III – conceptions of justice and right – places a Rawlsian constraint on the pursuit of conceptions of good when such pursuits violate the equal rights of others. Weinstein’s initial claim that “all acts were consensual” was an attempt to displace the issues into Domain II – pursuit of joint conceptions of good. This study also examines whether Harvey Weinstein’s requirements, that female employees cater to his aesthetic tastes of wardrobe and fragrances – in Domain IV, conceptions of the beautiful – violate Domain III laws and statutes. Kohlberg’s 6 stages of moral development are discussed as 14 stages that incorporate Kohlberg’s mystical Stage 7 and Rawls’ moral development of the love of humankind as supererogatory conceptions of right according to the MJI theory and scoring manual (Colby & Kohlberg, 1987a). Further, Rawls’ identification of Vices at the Level of the Morality of Association (Rawls, 1971) and Erdynast’s Relational Vices (Erdynast & Chen, 2014) are examined.

Tags: , , , , ,

A Relational Approach to Moral Development in Societies, Organizations and Individuals

Michael F. Mascolo, Allison DiBianca Fasoli, David Greenway

Abstract: Discussions of morality in businesses and organization tend to center around the rights and freedoms of organizations and/or customers, or around the importance of socially responsible business practice. Rights-based deliberations are often invoked to justify the pursuit of self-interest, either by the business or customer. Calls for socially responsible practices function to constrain the self-interest of organizations, or otherwise prompt businesses to “give back” to the communities they serve. In either case, genuinely moral motives are often seen as secondary to what is assumed to be the primary goal of business – the pursuit of profit.  We reject the common sense view that business and moral practice operate as separate spheres of activity. In so doing, we offer a relationalist conception of morality and moral development in everyday life. From a relationalist view, moral standards arise not from nature, God, the mind, or society. They emerge in embodied relational activity that occurs between people. Moral relationalism embraces neither moral universalism nor relativism, but instead views moral standards as a continuously emergent but constrained properties of discursive action that occurs between people as they negotiate and negotiate questions of “what ought to be” in physical and socio-cultural contexts.  In this paper, we first show how the full range of moral standards arise in different forms of social relations between people. We then apply the moral relationalist framework to an analysis of the inescapable role of moral judgment in all business practices. In so doing, we suggest that business decision-making should be continuously informed by the tensions that arise between and among at least three moral frameworks: rights, virtue and care.  We illustrate the moral relationalist approach to business through in-depth analyses of the moral mindsets of three entrepreneurs who integrate moral concerns into their business practices in different ways.

Tags: , , , , , , ,






Current Issue

Recent Issues