Author of the method of moral dilemmas. Moral dilemmas in the activities of a teacher and an algorithm for solving them

The technique is intended to assess the level of development moral consciousness. For this L.Kolberg formulated nine dilemmas, in the assessment of which norms of law and morality, as well as values ​​of different levels, collide.

Test material

Nine hypothetical dilemmas

Form A

DilemmaIII. In Europe, a woman was dying from a special form of cancer. There was only one medicine that doctors thought could save her. It was a form of radium recently discovered by a pharmacist in the same city. Making the medicine was expensive. But the pharmacist set a price 10 times higher. He paid $400 for the radium and set a price of $4,000 for a small dose of radium. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow money and used every legal means, but could only raise about $2,000. He told the pharmacist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or accept payment later. But the pharmacist said: “No, I discovered a medicine and I’m going to make good money on it, using all the real means.” And Heinz decided to break into the pharmacy and steal the medicine.

1. Should Heinz steal the medicine?
1. Why yes or no?
2. (The question is posed in order to identify the subject’s moral type and should be considered optional). Is it good or bad for him to steal the medicine?
1. (The question is posed in order to identify the subject's moral type and should be considered optional.) Why is this right or wrong?
3. Does Heinz have a duty or obligation to steal the medicine?
1. Why yes or no?
4. If Heinz didn't love his wife, should he have stolen the medicine for her? (If the subject does not approve of stealing, ask: will there be a difference in his action if he loves or does not love his wife?)
1. Why yes or no?
5. Suppose that it is not his wife who dies, but a stranger. Should Heinz steal someone else's medicine?
1. Why yes or no?
6. (If the subject approves of stealing medicine for someone else.) Suppose it is a pet that he loves. Should Heinz steal to save his beloved animal?
1. Why yes or no?
7. Is it important for people to do whatever they can to save the life of another?
1. Why yes or no?
8. Stealing is against the law. Is this morally bad?
1. Why yes or no?
9. In general, should people try to do everything they can to obey the law?
1. Why yes or no?
10. (This question is included to elicit the subject's orientation and should not be considered mandatory.) Thinking through the dilemma again, what would you say is the most important thing for Heinz to do in this situation?
1. Why?

(Questions 1 and 2 of Dilemma III 1 are optional. If you do not want to use them, read Dilemma III 1 and its continuation and start with question 3.)

Dilemma III 1. Heinz went into the pharmacy. He stole the medicine and gave it to his wife. The next day, a report of the robbery appeared in the newspapers. Police officer Mr. Brown, who knew Heinz, read the message. He remembered seeing Heinz running from the pharmacy and realized that Heinz had done it. The policeman hesitated whether he should report this.

1. Should Officer Brown report that Heinz committed the theft?
1. Why yes or no?
2. Let's say Officer Brown close friend Heinz. Should he then file a report on him?
1. Why yes or no?

Continuation: Officer Brown reported Heinz. Heinz was arrested and brought to trial. The jury was selected. The jury's job is to determine whether a person is guilty or not of a crime. The jury finds Heinz guilty. The judge's job is to pronounce a sentence.

1. Should the judge give Heinz a specific sentence or release him?
1. Why is this the best?
2. From a societal perspective, should people who break the law be punished?
1. Why yes or no?
2. How does this apply to what the judge has to decide?
3. Heinz did what his conscience told him to do when he stole the medicine. Should a lawbreaker be punished if he acted dishonestly?
1. Why yes or no?
4. (This question is intended to elicit the subject's orientation and may be considered optional.) Think through the dilemma: What do you think is the most important thing a judge should do?
1. Why?

(Questions 7-12 are included to identify the system ethical views subject and should not be considered mandatory.)

1. What does the word conscience mean to you? If you were Heinz, how would your conscience influence your decision?
2. Heinz must make a moral decision. Should a moral decision be based on feelings or on deliberation and reflection about what is right and wrong?
3. Is the Heinz problem a moral problem? Why?
1. In general, what makes something a moral issue or what does the word morality mean to you?
4. If Heinz is going to decide what to do by thinking about what is truly just, there must be some answer, a right decision. Is there really some right solution to moral problems like Heinz's, or, when people disagree, is everyone's opinion equally fair? Why?
5. How can you know when you have reached a good moral decision? Is there a way of thinking or a method by which a person can arrive at a good or adequate solution?
6. Most believe that thinking and reasoning in science can lead to the correct answer. Is this true for moral decisions or are they different?

DilemmaI. Joe is a 14-year-old boy who really wanted to go to camp. His father promised him that he could go if he earned money for it himself. Joe worked hard and saved the $40 he needed to go to camp and a little more. But just before the trip, my father changed his mind. Some of his friends decided to go fishing, but his father did not have enough money. He told Joe to give him the money he had saved up. Joe didn't want to give up the trip to the camp and was going to refuse his father.

1. Should Joe refuse to give his father the money?
1. Why yes or no?

(Questions 2 and 3 are intended to determine the moral type of subjects - i and are optional.)

1. Does the father have the right to persuade Joe to give him money?
1. Why yes or no?
2. Does giving money mean that the son is good?
1. Why?
3. Is it important in this situation that Joe made the money himself?
1. Why?
4. His father promised Joe that he could go to the camp if he earned the money himself. Is the father's promise the most important thing in this situation?
1. Why?
5. In general, why should a promise be kept?
6. Is it important to keep a promise to someone you don't know well and probably won't see again?
1. Why?
7. What is the most important thing a father should care about in his relationship with his son?
1. Why is this the most important?
8. In general, what should be the authority of a father in relation to his son?
1. Why?
9. What is the most important thing a son should care about in his relationship with his father?
1. Why is this the most important thing?
10. (The following question is intended to elicit the subject's orientation and should be considered optional.) What do you think is the most important thing for Joe to do in this situation?
1. Why?

Form B

Dilemma IV. One woman had a very severe form of cancer for which there was no cure. Dr. Jefferson knew she had 6 months to live. She was in terrible pain, but was so weak that a sufficient dose of morphine would have allowed her to die sooner. She even became delirious, but during calm periods she asked the doctor to give her enough morphine to kill her. Although Dr. Jefferson knows that mercy killing is against the law, he considers complying with her request.

1. Should Dr. Jefferson give her a drug that would kill her?
1. Why?
2. (This question is aimed at identifying the moral type of the subject and is not mandatory). Is it right or wrong for him to give a woman a medicine that would allow her to die?
1. Why is this right or wrong?
3. Should a woman have the right to make the final decision?
1. Why yes or no?
4. The woman is married. Should her husband interfere in the decision?
1. Why?
5. (The next question is optional). What should a good husband do in this situation?
1. Why?
6. Does a person have a duty or obligation to live when he does not want to, but wants to, commit suicide?
7. (The next question is optional). Does Dr. Jefferson have a duty or obligation to make the drug available to the woman?
1. Why?
8. When a pet is seriously injured and dies, it is killed to relieve the pain. Does the same thing apply here?
1. Why?
9. It is illegal for a doctor to give a woman medicine. Is it also morally wrong?
1. Why?
10. In general, should people do everything they can to obey the law?
1. Why?
2. How does this apply to what Dr. Jefferson should have done?
11. (The next question is about moral orientation, it is optional.) As you consider the dilemma, what would you say is the most important thing Dr. Jefferson would do?
1. Why?

(Question 1 of Dilemma IV 1 is optional)

Dilemma IV 1. Dr. Jefferson committed merciful murder. At this time I was passing by Dr. Rogers. He knew the situation and tried to stop Dr. Jefferson, but the cure had already been given. Dr. Rogers hesitated whether he should report Dr. Jefferson.

1. Should Dr. Rogers have reported Dr. Jefferson?
1. Why?

Continuation: Dr. Rogers reported on Dr. Jefferson. Dr. Jefferson is put on trial. The jury has been selected. The jury's job is to determine whether a person is guilty or innocent of a crime. The jury finds Dr. Jefferson guilty. The judge must pronounce a sentence.

1. Should the judge punish Dr. Jefferson or release him?
1. Why do you think this is the best answer?
2. Think in terms of society, should people who break the law be punished?
1. Why yes or no?
2. How does this apply to the judge's decision?
3. The jury finds Dr. Jefferson legally guilty of murder. Is it fair or not for the judge to sentence him to death (a possible punishment under the law)? Why?
4. Is it always right to impose the death penalty? Why yes or no? Under what conditions do you think the death sentence should be imposed? Why are these conditions important?
5. Dr. Jefferson did what his conscience told him to do when he gave the woman the medicine. Should a lawbreaker be punished if he does not act according to his conscience?
1. Why yes or no?
6. (The next question may be optional). Thinking about the dilemma again, what would you identify as the most important thing for a judge to do?
1. Why?

(Questions 8-13 reveal the subject’s system of ethical views and are not mandatory.)

1. What does the word conscience mean to you? If you were Dr. Jefferson, what would your conscience tell you when making a decision?
2. Dr. Jefferson must make a moral decision. Should it be based on feeling or only on reasoning about what is right and wrong?
1. In general, what makes an issue moral or what does the word “morality” mean to you?
3. If Dr. Jefferson is pondering what is truly right, there must be some right answer. Is there really any right solution to moral problems like those of Dr. Jefferson, or where everyone's opinion is equally right? Why?
4. How can you know when you have reached a just moral decision? Is there a way of thinking or a method by which a good or adequate solution can be reached?
5. Most people believe that thinking and reasoning in science can lead to the correct answer. Is the same true for moral decisions or is there a difference?

Dilemma II. Judy is a 12-year-old girl... Her mother promised her that she could go to a special rock concert in their city if she saved up money for a ticket by working as a babysitter and saving a little on breakfast. She saved up $15 for the ticket, plus an extra $5. But her mother changed her mind and told Judy that she should spend the money on new clothes for school. Judy was disappointed and decided to go to the concert any way she could. She bought a ticket and told her mother that she only earned $5. On Wednesday she went to the show and told her mother that she had spent the day with a friend. A week later, Judy told her older sister, Louise, that she had gone to the play and lied to her mother. Louise was wondering whether to tell her mother about what Judy had done.

1. Should Louise tell her mother that Judy lied about the money, or should she remain silent?
1. Why?
2. Hesitating whether to tell or not, Louise thinks that Judy is her sister. Should this influence Judy's decision?
1. Why yes or no?
3. (This question regarding the definition of moral type is optional.) Does such a story have any connection with the position of a good daughter?
1. Why?
4. Is it important in this situation that Judy made her own money?
1. Why?
5. Judy's mother promised her that she could go to the concert if she earned money herself. Is the mother's promise the most important in this situation?
1. Why yes or no?
6. Why should a promise be kept at all?
7. Is it important to keep a promise to someone you don't know well and probably won't see again?
1. Why?
8. What is the most important thing a mother should care about in her relationship with her daughter?
1. Why is this the most important thing?
9. In general, what should a mother's authority be like for her daughter?
1. Why?
10. What is the most important thing you think a daughter should care about in relation to her mother?
1. Why is this thing important?

(The next question is optional.)

1. Thinking through the dilemma again, what would you say is the most important thing for Louise to do in this situation?
1. Why?

Form C

Dilemma V. In Korea, a crew of sailors retreated when faced with superior enemy forces. The crew crossed the bridge over the river, but the enemy was still mainly on the other side. If someone went to the bridge and blew it up, the rest of the team, with the advantage of time, could probably escape. But the person who stayed behind to blow up the bridge would not be able to escape alive. The captain himself is the person who best knows how to conduct a retreat. He called for volunteers, but there were none. If he goes on his own, the people will probably not return safely; he is the only one who knows how to conduct a retreat.

1. Should the captain have ordered the man to go on the mission or should he have gone himself?
1. Why?
2. Should a captain send a man (or even use a lottery) when it means sending him to his death?
1. Why?
3. Should the captain have gone himself when it meant the men would probably not make it back safely?
1. Why?
4. Does a captain have the right to order a man if he thinks it is the best move?
1. Why?
5. Does the person who receives the order have a duty or obligation to go?
1. Why?
6. What creates the need to save or protect human life?
1. Why is it important?
2. How does this apply to what a captain should do?
7. (The next question is optional.) Thinking through the dilemma again, what would you say is the most responsible thing for a captain?
1. Why?

Dilemma VIII. In one country in Europe, a poor man named Valjean could not find work; neither his sister nor brother could. Having no money, he stole bread and the medicine they needed. He was captured and sentenced to 6 years in prison. Two years later he ran away and began to live in a new place under a different name. He saved money and gradually built a large factory, paid his workers the highest wages and most I donated some of my profits to a hospital for people who could not get good medical care. Twenty years passed, and one sailor recognized the factory owner Valjean as an escaped convict whom the police were looking for in his hometown.

1. Should the sailor have reported Valjean to the police?
1. Why?
2. Does a citizen have a duty or obligation to report a fugitive to the authorities?
1. Why?
3. Suppose Valjean were a close friend of the sailor? Should he then report Valjean?
4. If Valjean was reported and brought to trial, should the judge send him back to hard labor or release him?
1. Why?
5. Think about it, from a society's point of view, should people who break the law be punished?
1. Why?
2. How does this apply to what a judge should do?
6. Valjean did what his conscience told him to do when he stole the bread and medicine. Should a lawbreaker be punished if he does not act according to his conscience?
1. Why?
7. (This question is optional.) Revisiting the dilemma, what would you say is the most important thing a sailor needs to do?
1. Why?

(Questions 8-12 concern the subject's ethical belief system; they are not necessary to determine the moral stage.)

1. What does the word conscience mean to you? If you were Valjean, how would your conscience be involved in the decision?
2. Valjean must make a moral decision. Should a moral decision be based on a feeling or inference about right and wrong?
3. Is Valjean's problem a moral problem? Why?
1. In general, what makes a problem moral and what does the word moral mean to you?
4. If Valjean is going to decide what needs to be done by thinking about what is actually just, there must be some answer, a right decision. Is there really some right solution to moral problems like Valjean's dilemma, or when people disagree, is everyone's opinion equally valid? Why?
5. How do you know when you have reached a good moral decision? Is there a way of thinking or a method by which a person can arrive at a good or adequate solution?
6. Most people believe that inference or reasoning in science can lead to the correct answer. Is this true for moral decisions or are they different?

Dilemma VII. Two young men, brothers, found themselves in a difficult situation. They secretly left the city and needed money. Carl, the eldest, broke into the store and stole a thousand dollars. Bob, the youngest, went to see an old retired man who was known to help people in the city. He told this man that he was very sick and needed a thousand dollars to pay for the operation. Bob asked the man to give him money and promised that he would give it back when he got better. In reality, Bob was not sick at all and had no intention of returning the money. Although the old man did not know Bob well, he gave him money. So Bob and Carl skipped town, each with a thousand dollars.

1. What's worse: stealing like Carl or cheating like Bob?
1. Why is this worse?
2. What do you think is the worst thing about deceiving an old person?
1. Why is this the worst?
3. In general, why should a promise be kept?
4. Is it important to keep a promise? given to a person someone you don't know well or will never see again?
1. Why yes or no?
5. Why shouldn't you steal from a store?
6. What is the value or importance of property rights?
7. Should people do everything they can to obey the law?
1. Why yes or no?
8. (The following question is intended to elicit the subject's orientation and should not be considered mandatory.) Was the old man irresponsible in lending Bob money?
1. Why yes or no?

Theoretical basis for interpreting test results

L.Kolberg identifies three main levels of development of moral judgments: preconventional, conventional and postconventional.

Pre-conventional level is characterized by egocentric moral judgments. Actions are assessed mainly on the basis of benefit and their physical consequences. What is good is what gives pleasure (for example, approval); something that causes displeasure (for example, punishment) is bad.

Conventional the level of development of moral judgments is achieved when the child accepts the assessments of his reference group: family, class, religious community... The moral norms of this group are assimilated and observed uncritically, as the truth in last resort. By acting in accordance with the rules accepted by the group, you become “good.” These rules can also be universal, such as the biblical commandments. But they are not developed by the person himself as a result of his free choice, but are accepted as external restrictions or as the norm of the community with which the person identifies himself.

Post-conventional the level of development of moral judgments is rare even in adults. As already mentioned, its achievement is possible from the moment of the appearance of hypothetico-deductive thinking (the highest stage of development of intelligence, according to J. Piaget). This is the level of development of personal moral principles, which may differ from the norms of the reference group, but at the same time have universal breadth and universality. At this stage we're talking about about the search for universal foundations of morality.

At each of the above levels of development L.Kolberg identified several stages. Achieving each of them is possible, according to the author, only in a given sequence. But strictly linking stages to age L.Kolberg doesn't.

Stages of development of moral judgments according to L.Kolberg:

Stage	Age	Grounds moral choice	Attitude to the idea of ​​the intrinsic value of human existence
Pre-conventional level
0	0-2	I do what pleases me	–
1	2-3	Focus on possible punishment. I obey the rules to avoid punishment	Value human life mixed with the value of the items that person owns
2	4-7	Naive consumer hedonism. I do what I am praised for; I do good deeds according to the principle: “you - for me, I - for you”	The value of a human life is measured by the pleasure that person gives to a child
Conventional level
3	7-10	Good boy morals. I act in such a way as to avoid disapproval and hostility from my neighbors, I strive to be (be known as) a “good boy”, “good girl”	The value of a human life is measured by how much that person sympathizes with the child
4	10-12	Authority-oriented. I act this way to avoid disapproval from authorities and feelings of guilt; I do my duty, I obey the rules	Life is assessed as sacred, inviolable in the categories of moral (legal) or religious norms and obligations
Post-conventional level
5	After 13	Morality based on the recognition of human rights and democratically accepted law. I act according to my own principles, respect the principles of other people, try to avoid self-condemnation	Life is valued both from the point of view of its benefit to humanity and from the point of view of the right of every person to life
6	After 18	Individual principles developed independently. I act in accordance with universal human moral principles	Life is seen as sacred from a position of respect for unique opportunities each person

Sources

• Antsiferova L.I. The connection between moral consciousness and human moral behavior (based on research materials by L. Kohlberg and his school)// Psychological Journal, 1999. T. 20. No. 3. P. 5-17.
• Methodology for assessing the level of development of moral consciousness (L. Kohlberg's Dilemmas)/ Diagnostics of emotional and moral development. Ed. and comp. I.B. Dermanova. – St. Petersburg, 2002. P.103-112.

I. Purpose, concept of morality.

P. Moral education of students.

III. The tasks of the teacher in the implementation of moral education.

IV. Levels moral development.

V. Diagnosis of moral education junior schoolchildren.

The purpose of moral education is the formation of moral consciousness and behavioral skills.

Moral consciousness is closely connected with morality.

Morality- a form of social consciousness, which is a set of principles, requirements, norms and rules governing human behavior in all spheres of it public life.

In the moral formation of personality, it is important to take into account moral feelings(positive attitude towards the norms of behavior in a given society), moral will And moral ideal(freedom, friendship, peace). The moral ideal is realized in life plans, patterns of behavior are manifested in life position, in ideas about a perfect personality.

Interaction of ideal and life plans determined by the cognitive interests of schoolchildren, their moral feelings and will, and the level of development of their self-awareness.

* connection to professional aspirations

· Example, action - identification of a motive by children - analysis of actions and deeds - correlation of them with one’s actions - changing the way one behaves and existing views - a beneficial effect on the assimilation of moral models. Development of the identified advantages of people, especially in early adolescence and adolescence.

Moral education carried out throughout the entire life activity of the individual, taking into account age and the environment that decisively influences students' value orientations(family, peers, friends).

Moral education of students performs several educational functions: gives a broad understanding of the moral values ​​of human life and culture; influences the formation of moral ideas, concepts, views, judgments, assessments and, on this basis, the formation of moral beliefs; promotes understanding and enrichment of children’s own moral experience; corrects knowledge in the field of morality obtained from various sources; contributes to the moral self-education of the individual.

Moral education is carried out through ethical conversations, lectures, debates, themed school evenings, and meetings with representatives of various professions.

When organizing moral education, it is necessary to take into account age characteristics children and their individual moral experience.

Moral development personality includes the formation moral needs: needs for work, for communication, for the development of cultural values, and for the development of cognitive abilities.

Each role presupposes certain moral and psychological qualities: consciousness, responsibility, hard work, willingness to help.

Special place in the system of moral education occupy moral habits(the need to use learned ways of behavior).

Before you begin to develop a particular habit, it is necessary to position the child to acquire a positive habit or eradicate a negative habit.

The basis for developing moral habits is the positive motivation of students’ behavior.

Habits are developed sequentially from the simplest to the more complex, requiring self-control and self-organization.

· general atmosphere educational institution- traditions - formation of positive ways of behavior

The assimilation of moral norms is enriched by a person’s emotional attitude towards these norms. Moral feelings, moral experiences and moral relationships are deeply personal. They give a person satisfaction from a noble intention or deed, and cause remorse when violating moral norms.

Teacher's tasks: help the child identify objects of feelings and values.

To develop moral feelings, it is necessary to include children in situations that require complicity and compassion; develop subtlety of feeling in relation to others.

Jr school age characterized by increased susceptibility to the assimilation of moral requirements and norms. Moral education here is aimed at developing humanistic relations and children's relationships based on feelings and emotional responsiveness.

The essence of the little man is manifested in action(as an indicator of moral education).

· moral consciousness = moral knowledge + moral feelings;

nobility, honesty, sense of duty, love, kindness, shame, humanity, responsibility, mercy.

Criteria for moral education:

1. The ability to resist temptation while adhering to a certain moral principle.

2. Feelings of guilt after committing an offense.

Kohlberg highlights the following levels of moral development:

1. Pre-moral level

(from 4 (5) to 7 (8) years old)

Focus on reward and punishment, achieving pleasure.

2. Morality of conditional - volitional conformity (adaptation)

The child tries to play a role aimed at OK those around you. Hence the adaptation to the behavior of others and an orientation toward authority (!authority can be a peer or an adult with a “-” sign).

3. Morality of high moral principles (from 12 years old) On the one hand, society, on the other, individual values.

Criteria for levels 1 and 2

1. The individual's intentions are not taken into account. 4 “by accident” > 1 “on purpose”. The one who has the larger, dirtier stain is to blame.

2. - relativity-

Any action is assessed either as good or bad. In a dispute, the elder, the teacher, the educator are right.

3. - independence of consequences -

The severity of the offense is assessed by the severity of the adult punishment for damage.

· willingness to fight back (with more force);

· but there are children who know how to forgive early.

4. Using punishment for correction and re-education. Punishment according to the law, in accordance with the gravity of the crime.

5. Substitution of punishment and accident (the adult helped, immediately to the offender: “Serves you right!”).

Moral consciousness assigned to a person during his life in three main stages. It is possible to educate moral person. Under correctly created conditions, moral degradation is impossible (if before... was at a high level of moral development).

*put in a situation of moral choice

* shift social roles

* teach empathy

Moral dilemmas

What upsets me the most is when...

When my mom gets angry...

If I were a bookcase then...

When I see an abandoned kitten, I...

If I had Magic wand...(tendencies: I want to have - pre-moral level; I want to be; I wish that everything)

A dilemma is a stimulus for a discussion that has a moral theme. Can be used as an individual test.

The dilemma must be relevant to the real life of students (a situation from school life, everyday and understandable, life should be unfinished).

A dilemma includes two or more questions filled with moral content (What should it be? What would you do?). Answer options should be offered to choose from, with attention focused on the main question of the dilemma: How should the main character behave? (all questions should “revolve” around this main question).

How do you think this should influence...?

If..., does this mean that...?

Is this fact important? Why?

Why is this important...?

Is it so important... if you never encounter it in life...?

What should the attitude be based on...?

There is a constant re-evaluation of judgments and actions.

Study of the level of moral education of junior schoolchildren

1. During a conversation with students, find out how they understand the meaning of the following words : kind - evil, honest - deceitful, hardworking - lazy, brave - cowardly, unscrupulous, shameful. Draw a conclusion about the level of formation of moral ideas.

2. Using the methods of an unfinished thesis and a fantastic choice (fairy, magic wand, gold fish), draw a conclusion about the level of formation of personal moral qualities younger schoolchildren.

3. Create and discuss a moral dilemma with students.

4. Based on the data obtained, as well as during observation of the process of communication between schoolchildren and the teacher and with each other, draw a general conclusion about the level of moral education of students in your class.

POSITIONS I (+) – YOU (+)

/BY E.BERNE/ I (+) – YOU (--)

I (--) – YOU (+)

I (--) – YOU (--) * position of hopelessness

Majority moral dilemmas Kohlberg puts subjects in situations of negative actions - theft, punishment, breaking laws. Little has been reported about the types of judgments that children use to justify prosocial behavior. Psychologists know that altruistic behavior is observed in children as early as 2-3 years old; I wonder how children explain and justify this behavior?

Nancy Eisenberg and her colleagues studied similar questions, presenting children with dilemmas in which own interests opposed to the opportunity to help another person. For example, one of the stories tells how baby is coming for a friend's birthday. On the way, he meets another child who fell and hit himself. If the first child stops to help, he may not have enough cake and ice cream. What should he do?

In response to this dilemma, preschool children most often use hedonic judgments, as Eisenberg called them, in which the child is concerned with the consequences of an action for himself, rather than with moral principles. Children this age say things like, “I'll help him because next time he'll help me,” or “I won't help him because I'll miss his birthday.” This approach is gradually replaced by needs-oriented judgments, where the child expresses a direct interest in the needs of another person, even if the needs of others conflict with own desires and needs. Children with similar judgments say in the following way: “He would feel better if I helped.” At this stage, children do not explain their choices in terms of general principles and do not reflect generalized values; they simply respond to the needs of others.

Later still, usually in adolescence, children say that they do good deeds because it is expected of them. This pattern closely resembles moral judgments corresponding to Stage 3 of Kohlberg's model. After all, in late adolescence, some young people exhibit developed, clear, deeply held values ​​that guide their prosocial behavior: “I feel the need to help others” or “If everyone helped each other, society would be a better place.”

Sample data from Eisenberg's longitudinal study of a small group of children in the United States illustrate a shift from hedonic to need-oriented judgments. By the beginning of adolescence, hedonic judgments virtually disappear and need-oriented judgments become dominant. Eisenberg notes that similar patterns have been found in children in West Germany, Poland and Italy, but elementary school children in Israel raised on kibbutzim show only a small number of needs-based judgments. Indeed, the judgments of Israeli children of this group are most often based on internalized values, norms and ideas about the humanity of humanity. This pattern is consistent with the ideology of the kibbutz movement, which places a strong emphasis on the principles of equality and social values. These findings suggest that it is possible that culture plays a more significant role in shaping children's prosocial judgments than in shaping fairness judgments, although this conclusion may be premature.

There are clear parallels between Eisenberg's sequence of changes in prosocial judgments and Kohlberg's levels and stages of moral judgment. Children move in a direction from a self-centered orientation to a position in which social approval drives reasoning about fairness and good deeds. Much later, some young people develop individual norms to govern both types of judgments.

However, despite these obvious parallels, researchers typically find only moderate correlations between children's reasoning about prosocial dilemmas like those proposed by Eisenberg and their reasoning about dilemmas of justice and fairness proposed by Kohlberg. The sequence of stages may be similar, but children's judgments in one area do not necessarily generalize to an adjacent area.

Eisenberg's research, as well as the work of other researchers working in this direction, helps expand Kohlberg's original concept without changing its fundamental principles. Carol Gilligan, on the other hand, questions some of the basic assumptions of Kohlberg's model.

Gilligan hypothesis

Carol Gilligan at Definition characteristic features moral judgments does not place the emphasis on fairness and justice, as Kohlberg does, but believes that there are at least two leading “moral orientations”: fairness and help. Each has its own basic purpose: not to treat others unfairly and not to turn away from those in need. Boys and girls are aware of these basic principles, but Gilligan believes that girls are more likely to act in a helpful and cooperative manner, while boys are more likely to act in a fair and fair manner. Because of these differences, Gilligan suggests, they tend to perceive moral dilemmas very differently.

Gilligan's hypothesis makes sense given evidence of sex differences in interaction styles and friendship patterns. It is possible that girls, by focusing more on intimacy in relationships, evaluate moral dilemmas using different criteria. However, research does not support the fact that boys use fairness judgments more often or that girls use helping judgments more often.

This pattern has been found in several studies of adults, but studies of children, adolescents, or college students generally do not find this pattern. The choice of a child or adult of one orientation or another in solving a moral dilemma is influenced not so much by the gender factor as by the nature of the dilemma itself. For example, a dilemma related to interpersonal relationships is more likely to involve the use of a helping orientation, whereas dilemmas directly related to justice themes are more likely to involve the use of a helping orientation. more likely will appeal to a justice orientation. It may be that adult women are more likely to interpret moral dilemmas as personal, but both men and women use both helping and fairness arguments when resolving moral dilemmas.

For example, Lawrence Walker assessed children's solutions to moral dilemmas using Kohlberg's fairness framework and Gilligan's measure of helping orientation. He found no sex differences in either hypothetical dilemmas such as Heinz's or real-life dilemmas posed by the children themselves. Only in adults did Walker actually find differences in the direction Gilligan would have expected.

Gilligan finds that these young women are much more likely to use a “help ethic” than a “justice ethic” as the basis for their moral judgments, whereas the opposite is true for boys and men.

Gilligan's arguments were often quoted in the popular press as if they were already proven, when in fact empirical basis quite weak. Gilligan herself has not conducted any systematic research on children's or adults' helping orientation. However, despite these shortcomings, one should not dismiss all the main points of her model primarily because the questions she asks fit well with the latest research on sex differences in relationship style. The fact that psychologists generally find no differences between boys and girls in their propensity to choose helping or fairness orientations does not mean that there are no differences in the beliefs that men and women bring to relationships or moral judgments. Therefore, it is in this area that much more information is needed.

What is the connection between these topics? Is it possible to predict a child's behavior, such as a moral choice, a generous act, or the characteristics of his relationships, by knowing the stage or level of his social cognition? Yes and no. Knowing the form or level of a child’s judgment cannot indicate exactly what he will do in real life. social situation, but nevertheless exists meaningful connection between thinking and behavior.

Empathic understanding, prosocial judgments and behavior

One possible link exists between empathy and prosocial behavior. The data is not entirely consistent, but Eisenberg's research shows that children who are more empathic or other-oriented are more likely to help other people in real-life situations and are less likely to exhibit socially disruptive or extreme behavior. aggressive behavior. For example, Georg Bear and Gail Rees presented Eisenberg's four dilemmas to a group of 2nd and 3rd grade students who were selected from 17 different classes. The teacher in each class simultaneously assessed each child's level of disruptive and aggressive behavior, as well as positive social skills, including:

friendliness towards peers;

having friends;

ability to cope with failure;

feel comfortable in the role of a leader, etc.

Bear and Rees found that those children who used primarily hedonic thinking were rated lower by their teachers on social competence than those children who used primarily other-oriented thinking or higher levels of social judgment. Teachers also noted that hedonic boys were more likely to exhibit aggressive behavior, but not hedonic girls. Also, boys with hedonic thinking had fewer friends and were more often rejected by their peers. Bear and Rees believe that higher levels of prosocial moral judgments help reduce aggressive and destructive behavior by keeping it at a socially acceptable level, thus helping to prevent peer rejection.

According to Eisenberg's observations, some types of prosocial judgments are associated with altruistic behavior child. For example, in a study of a group of 10-year-old children, she found that hedonic thinking was negatively correlated with the children's willingness to donate coins they earned for participating in the study to the UN Children's Fund. In another study, 4- to 5-year-old children who differed high level empathic reactions to the distress of others and used prosocial judgments focused on the needs of others and expressed a sincere willingness to help a peer in need.

Understanding friendship and friendships

Equivalent connections can be traced in studies of judgments of friendship. In general, children who have more mature judgments about friendship are less likely to be aggressive toward their peers and more likely to be generous and caring toward their friends in real-life interactions.

Lawrence Kurdek and Donna Crile, observing students in grades 3-8 in one study, found that those children who scored high on the maturity of judgments about people and friendships were more likely to establish reciprocal friendships than children who had lower rates. Similarly, Selman compared children's scores on social judgment with scores social competence and incompetence given by teachers. He found that in children with mature social judgments, teachers were more likely to report higher levels of prosocial behavior, such as a desire to help.

However, there is one interesting exception to this pattern: the dominant pattern in boys' friendships is often one of competition rather than support or mutual aid. Moreover, Berndt found that boys' level of competition or cooperation was not related to their level of social-cognitive judgments about friendship or mutual aid. Thus, while a correlation is typically found between the maturity of a child's social judgments and his or her friendship-making skills, more mature judgments do not necessarily increase the level of support or cooperation in actual male friendship dyads. Therefore, this fact serves as further evidence that the “rules of friendship” differ between boys and girls. This pattern should be considered both interesting and important.

Moral judgments and behavior

Colbert's theory is sometimes criticized on the grounds that the moral behavior of children or adults does not always correspond to their judgments. In fact, Colbert never said there had to be an exact match.

Stage 4 judgments do not mean that you will never cheat or that you will always be kind to your mother. But still, the form of judgment that a young person usually applies to moral problems must have at least some connection with behavior in real life.

One such link proposed by Colbert is that the higher the level of judgment demonstrated by a young person, the stronger the link to behavior should be. Thus, judgments corresponding to stage 4 or 5 are more likely to follow their own rules or principles than children at lower levels.

For example, Colbert and Cundy studied students involved in the free speech movement at Berkeley in the late 1960s. They interviewed and tested the moral judgment of a group that had been picketing around the university administration building, as well as a randomly selected group of campus residents. Among students whose judgments could be classified as Stage 4 or 5 and who believed that the siege was morally just, almost three quarters actually participated in the siege, compared with only one quarter of those students whose the judgments corresponded to stage 3 according to Kohlberg's classification. That is, the higher the stage the judgments correspond to, the higher their correlation with behavior.

In another study, Kohlberg and other researchers posed the question this way:

whether there is a connection between the stage of moral judgment and the ability to make a “moral choice”, such as not to cheat.

In one early study, Kohlberg found that of those college students whose judgments were at the principle level of judgment, only 15% of the students cheated when given the opportunity; among students at the conventional level, 55% of students were prone to cheating, and among those at the pre-conventional level - 70%.

Similar evidence comes from studies in which the moral judgments of aggressive or delinquent adolescents are compared with the judgments of peers who are not prone to delinquent behavior. The data obtained convincingly indicate that delinquent adolescents have more low levels moral judgments than non-incentives, even when the two groups are carefully matched by educational attainment, social class and IQ. In one study of this type, Virginia Gregg and her colleagues found that only 20% of a group of incarcerated delinquent men and women were at Stage 3 moral judgment or higher, whereas 59% of a carefully selected comparison group of non-incidents were at this level. subjects. Like younger children who are prone to aggressive and disruptive behavior in school, delinquent adults are more likely to engage in hedonic thinking and are at Colbert Stage 2 moral judgment.

However, despite the wealth of evidence for the relationship between moral judgments and behavior, no one has yet found a perfect fit. After all, in Kohlberg's studies, 15% of those in the principled level of moral judgment actually cheated, and a quarter of those in stages 4 and 5 who believed that picketing was morally right did not. As Kohlberg says, “Anyone can be principled in their reasoning and not live in accordance with those principles.”

What else might matter besides the level of judgment? James Rest suggests three elements. The first element is moral sensitivity - the awareness that this situation some moral issues included. Until a person sees a moral problem in any particular situation, there is no reason for moral judgments to influence a person's behavior. The tendency to recognize a moral dilemma is influenced by both empathy and role reversal skills.

The second element, moral motivation, is the process in which a person weighs competing values ​​and needs. For example, in any given situation one may not consider specific action as morally necessary or obligatory. Or the price may be too high. If no one needs help high costs time, money or effort, then most children and adults will help despite their general level social-cognitive judgments. But it is when costs are involved, such as in the case of children in Eisenberg's study who were asked whether they would be willing to donate some of the coins they earned to help other children, that there is a higher correlation between moral judgment and behavior. That is, the more general conclusion that can be drawn is that moral judgments become a factor in moral behavior only when something in the situation increases the feeling of moral conflict, such as when costs are involved or when a person feels personal responsibility.

Moral motivation often involves competing motives or ethical principles, such as peer group pressure, self-protection, or self-reward. Gerson and Damon clearly demonstrated this phenomenon in their study in which they asked groups of 4 children to share 10 pieces of candy. The candy was a reward for the work the children did on the project, and some group members worked harder than others. When children were asked separately about how candy should be divided, they usually offered various options for fair reward, for example, “to each according to his work.” However, when the children were faced with the actual situation of dividing candy, some of them wanted to take most of it for themselves; others followed the group decision and divided the candy equally. One might speculate that in early adolescence, when peer group influence is particularly strong, group influences on moral action may also be particularly strong.

The final element proposed by Rest is moral resilience—a set of processes that enable a person to adhere to a chosen moral course of action despite difficulties or external influences. A person's moral behavior in any given situation, according to Rest, is the result of all three of these factors, complementing the level of moral judgment.

Kohlberg's interest in the correspondence of moral judgments and moral behavior led him and his colleagues to a series of bold attempts to apply this theory to school education.

Application.

1. Moral dilemma method

Solving pedagogical problems of developing civic competence involves involving students in the discussion of socially significant issues that have moral overtones. Students must understand what motives and factors can drive people's behavior in such situations, understand the complexity and ambiguity of choice in many such cases, and evaluate it from their own position.

The achievement of these goals can be facilitated by the use of tasks based on the method of considering moral dilemmas.

A moral dilemma is a situation of moral choice in which there is no one thing for sure the right decision, is there different solutions that take into account different interests.

Purpose of the method:familiarizing students with situations of moralchoosing a socially significant character, developing the ability to analyze morality ny dilemmas; organizing a discussion to identify solutionsand the arguments of the discussion participants.

Age: 11 – 15 years old.

Academic disciplines: humanities (literaturetours, history, social studies, etc., to a lesser extent – ​​natural science subjects).

Task completion form: group work of students.

Materials:text describing the situation in which the moral dilemma manifests itself, a list of questions,setting the action plan for analyzing and discussing the situation.

Description of the working method:

The teacher describes to the children a situation containing a moral dilemma or invites them to get to know it on their own. Further work can be based on two slightly different scenarios.

Option 1:Students are encouraged to explore the situation individually and then discuss it in a group. The group must come to an agreed position regarding support or condemnation of the hero of the situation and discuss their arguments. Then each group expresses its position and gives reasons for it. Representatives of other groups and the teacher can ask clarifying questions.

At the end of the discussion, you can organize a quick poll (for example, using the “Take a Position” technique or simulating a secret vote with the results counted).

At the stage of organizing reflection, it is important to focus on what motives, values, and attitudes influence people’s behavior in a given situation.

Option 2.The class is divided into groups of three, in which they are asked to discuss the hero’s behavior and justify their assessment. Next, uniting two groups, guys exchange opinions and discuss everythingpoints for and against". Then they combine again in twos groups until the class is divided into two large groups. At this final stage (using boards) a presentation of arguments and summing up is made -which arguments are more convincing and why.

To structure their position, it is advisable for students to offer a system of questions that set a scheme for analyzing the situation. In general terms, it can be represented as follows:

1. What is happening in this situation?

2. Who participants in the situation?

3. What are the interests and goals of the participants situations? Do the goals and interests of the participants in the situation coincide or contradict each other?

4. Do the actions violate thenicknames moral norm(s)? If yes, then what kind of norm(s) exactly?

5. Who can be harmed by a violation of the norm?

6. Who is the norm violator? (If violateThere are several norms, then who is the violator of each of them?)

7. What can participants do in this situation? (Please list several behaviors.)

8. What one or another action may have consequences (option according toconduct) for participants? For other people?

9. What should each of its participants do in this situation? What would you do in their place?

At the discussion stage, the teacherneeds to be addressed Special attention to justify the action (i.e. answer the question “why?”). The answer must indicate the principle underlying the re sewing. The teacher should provoke students to vocalizedifferent points of view on the situation with obligatory arguments tation of their position, as well as to focus the attention of the students based on the ambiguity of one or another solution to the problem.

Evaluation criteria:

correspondence of answers to the levels of development of moral consciousness;

Ability to listen to the arguments of other participants

Analysis of students' argumentation in accordance with the level of development of moral consciousness.

Examples of tasks:

Exercise 1. Two classmates received different grades for the test (“3” and “4”), although their work was completely identical, and they did not copy one from the other. There is a very high risk that their strict teacher would rather lower a grade than a grade of three. Nevertheless, the friend who received a C, without the knowledge of the other, approaches the teacher with both notebooks. Is the girl doing the right thing towards her friend and why?

Task 2. Nikolai's friend asks him to lend him money. Nikolai knows that his friend uses drugs and will most likely spend money on them. When asked why he needs money, his friend does not answer. Nikolai gives him money. Did Nikolai do the right thing and why? What should he have done?

Task 3. A famous hockey player, brought up by the Russian hockey school, improving his professional skills in Russian clubs, signed a lucrative contract and left to play in the NHL. He soon became one of the highest paid players in the league. He founded his own fund to help sick American children in the USA, especially since charitable activities in the USA can significantly reduce taxes, but this does not exist in Russia. How can you evaluate the behavior of this athlete?

Task 4. Case "The Case of the Murder of Alexander" II»

Material for students:

Emperor Alexander II (years of reign -1855-1881) was named the Liberator in honor of histhe famous Manifesto of 1861 on the liberation of thestian from serfdom. In 1864 Alexander II spent judicial reform. The former closed court wasreplaced by vowel, oral, "quick, right, mercysupreme and equal for all subjects." The most importantcriminal cases began to be heard in the presence of 12 jurors elected from all classes especiallywe'll be fine. Occupation of lawyer or jurorattorney has become very important. Alexander is also onstarted many others important reforms in Russia, prepared forsigning the Constitution of Russia. Much has been doneit would have been impossible to raise Alexander without himthe knowledge he received in childhood, first of all, the benefitgiving to his personal mentor - the poet Zhukovsky. One day, during a history lesson in which the topic wasabout the Decembrists, Nikolai I asked his son: “Sasha!How would you punish them? - And young Alexander answeredto his father: “I would forgive them, dad.”

About the tragic death of Alexander II known before the legend of one monk, “a man of strong faith and spiritgreat and perspicacious": "...And I saw another star oneast; and that star, like the previous ones, was surrounded stars; but their bright light was like the color of blood. And the stars Yes, she did not reach her west and disappeared, as if in halfway through his journey. And it was terrible for me anda formidable word: “Behold, the star of the now reigning Sovereign Alexander Nikolaevich. And what about the blocked path you see her, then you know: this king in broad daylight is deprived there will be life by the hand of the slave he freed on the haystacksloyal capital. He will do something crazy and terrible.This is an atrocity! "" (Quoted from: S. Nilus. Shrine under a bushel).

March 1, 1881, literally the day before the signing of the Russian Constitution, in St. Petersburg, on the shore Catherine Canal, Wherenow the magnificent Church of the Savior on Spilled Blood has been erected, Tsar Alexander was killed by a group of revolutionary terrorists II. Court verdict killed five regicides - one of them a woman - to death execution by hanging. The public execution of the convicts was to take place on April 3 of that year. However, according to the law, the last wordin, after the verdict, belonged to the newlywho took the throne to the son of the murdered emperor - Alexander III. For he alone was given the right to pardon at the last momentcriminals, replacing the death penalty with another punishment, orallow the judgment of the court to take place.

Many in Russia were in favor of executing terrorists, for example KonStantin Pobedonostsev, one of the most influential statesmen in Russia at that time. At the same time, the two most significant representatives of the spiritual life of Russia addressedhonor simultaneously and independently of each other directly to the emperor withrequest for pardon for those convicted. These were Vladimir Solov Ev and Leo Tolstoy, who were not supporters of the revolutionary actions, but believed that the death penalty could not solve the problems standing before the young king.

QUESTIONS:

1. In this case, both execution and pardon are equally consistent with the law. What advice would you give to Alexander? III?

2. What other norms and values, besides law, might influence the king's decision-making and your advice to him? Are there standards of morality, religion, politics here? Name them.

What are the three strongest arguments that can be made in favor of a pardon? And against pardon? Prepare these arguments.

Applications to the case

1.

VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV (1853- 1900), son of the famous historian SergeiMikhailovich Solovyov, Russian religionclever philosopher. Deep religious feelingsdeath left an indelible markchat about his work. He said that Saint Sophia, the Wisdom of the World, appeared to him. The search for moral perfectionwas one of the main motives for his compositionny. “Two desires that are close to each other,like two invisible wings, they lift the human soul above the rest of nature:barking immortality and desire truth ormoral perfection. One without nothing else makes sense... Immortal suexistence beyond truth and perfectionwill be an eternal ordeal, and righteousness,deprived of immortality, will be a blatant failurethe truth." In his writings “Justificationknowledge of good”, “Law and Morality” by Vl.Solovyov reflected on the nature of the state. and rights. The state, he believed, is onlymay it fulfill its mission when it is one hundredno “concentrated pity”, i.e.love for all people. I am rightis primarily the “lowest limit orsome minimum of morality,equally obligatory for everyone.” Naturallaw ultimately comes down to one's ownbode and equality of people, the philosopher believed.

Vladimir Solovyov is deeply excitedthere was a murder of Alexander II and cook the execution of terrorist revolutionaries is underway. Hefirst I read a public lecture on this topiction in the hall of the St. Petersburg Credit Banksociety, after which he was offeredbut stop teaching at university for a whileuniversity and in general any public highdulling. Fearing that the contents of the lektion was conveyed to the king in a distorted sight, Soloviev sent him a personal lettermo, in which he, in particular, wrote the followingblowing: “The present difficult time will giveto the Russian Tsar an unprecedented opportunityability to declare the power of Christianityforgiveness and thereby accomplish the greatesta moral feat that will raisehis power to an unattainable height and to noholding him on a shaky foundationwoo. Pardoning the enemies of his power in spite of everythingnatural human feelingsdtsa, to all earthly calculations and considerationswisdom, the king will rise to a height beyondhumane and God himself will showthe natural significance of royal power will show that the highest spiritual power lives in himof the Russian people, because in all thisthere is not a single person among the peoplewho could do more under wig."

2.

LEO TOLSTOY (1828-1910) , great Russian writer, author of the famous “War and Peace”, “Anna Karenina”, influential religious thinker. For example, one German philosopher wrote in 1908: “...What thirty volumes... of Western European libraries can say, you can sometimes get compressed into ten lines, if you understand such a book as Tolstoy's On the Life." Leo Tolstoy did not accept law and believed that society could only be transformed by moral and religious self-righteousness the improvement of every person, renunciation of violence, “non-resistance to evil through violence” (“Confession”, “What is myfaith"). He was an ardent opponent of the death penalty (one hundred n ya “I can’t be silent”). For speaking out against Orthodox Church Tolstoy was excommunicated from her in 1901.

In 1881, after the trial of the regicides, Leo Tolstoy sentletter to the young king. In it the writer addresses Alexander III , according to him in my own words, not as a “sovereign”, but “simply, as a personcentury to man." Referring to the Gospel commandments, Tolstoy calledThe king’s desire is to allow earthly retribution to take place and to allow new murder, guided only by state informationteres, “the most terrible temptation.” "Don't forgive, execute the crimeNikikov, you will do this: from among hundreds you will tear out three, four, and evil will give birth to evil, and in place of three, four, 30, 40 will grow, and they themselves will foreveryou will lose that minute, which alone is more valuable than the whole century - the minute in whichwhich you could have fulfilled the will of God and did not fulfill it, and you will go forever from that crossroads at which you could have chosen good instead evil, and you will forever be stuck in the deeds of evil, called state benefit... Forgive, repay good for evil, and out of hundreds of villains, tenki will pass not to you, not to them - it doesn’t matter, but they will pass from the devil toTo God, and thousands, millions of hearts will tremble with joy and tendernessat the sight of an example of goodness from the throne in such a terrible time for his son, he was killed"Father for a minute." “...It’s not the number (of revolutionaries) that’s important, not thatdestroy their leaven, give another starter*."What is revolutionZioners? - he writes further to the king. - These are people who hate suthe existing order of things, find it bad and meannew to a future order of things that will be better. Killing, destroying pressing them, you cannot fight them. Their number is not important, but theirs is important thoughts. In order to fight them, you need to fight spiritually. Theirthe ideal is general prosperity, equality, freedom. To fight themit is necessary to set an ideal against them that would be higher than their ideaala, would include their ideal... There is only one ideal, which you can oppose them... - the ideal of love, forgiveness and retribution; good for evil. Just one word of forgiveness and Christian love, skadeclared and fulfilled from the height of the throne, and the way of the Christian kingthe formation you are about to enter may destroy thatthe evil that is plaguing Russia."

3.

KONSTANTIN POBEDONOSTSEV (1827-1907), largest Russian statesman and public figure. Konstantin was one of 11 children of a professor at Moscow University. In 1846 he graduated from the Imperial School of Law. niya, then taught civil law, wrote inscientific works, served in the Ministry of Justice and Sehere you go. Since 1861 he taught legal sciences memberus imperial family, including the future on heir to the throne Alexander III . A year before death of Alexander II appoints Pobedonostsev chiefProsecutor of the Holy Synod (church authority)stva), and Alexander III introduces it also into the Stateny Council. Pobedonostsev served in the Synod before hisresignation in 1905, accepted in connection with the tsar’s concessions to revolutionary sentiments.

Leo Tolstoy asks Pobedonostsev “as a Christian” to give the young emperor a letter witha call to pardon the terrorists who killed the Tsar"in the name of some greater good of all humanity."The chief prosecutor refused the writer: “Having read your letter, I saw that your faith is one, and my faith the forged one is different, and that our Christ is not your Christ. I know mine as a man of power and truth, a healer relaxed, but in yours the features of races seemed to me weakened, who himself requires healing.” Od At the same time, Pobedonostsev writes a letter to his former to our student - Alexander III:

“... No, no, and a thousand times no - it cannot be that in the face of the entire Russian people, at such a moment you would forgive the murderers of your father, the Russian Sovereign, for whose blood the whole earth (except for a few, weakened in mind and heart) demands vengeance... If this could happen, believe me, Sir. This will be considered a great sin and will shake the hearts of all your subjects. I am a Russian person, I live among Russians and I know how the people feel and what they require. At this moment everyone is thirsting for retribution. One of the villains who escapes death will immediately build new forges. For God's sake. Your Majesty, may the voice of flattery and dreaminess not penetrate your heart.

Your Imperial Majesty's loyal subject

Konstantin Pobedonostsev"

1. Invite students to open the text “The Case of the Murder of Alexander II” and read it carefully (individual work – 7 min.).

2. After reading the text, ask to briefly repeat the essence of the matter, naming the main facts that characterize it (each person in turn names only one fact):

- the emperor was actually killed by these revolutionaries;

- the guilt of all five was proven, the death sentence was imposed in full accordance with the law;

- the new Emperor Alexander III is the son of the murdered Tsar;

- According to the law, the emperor can pardon criminals, then the death penalty will be replaced by lifelong hard labor.

Make sure everyone understands these facts.

3. Help formulate the dilemma facing the king: “Execution cannot be pardoned.” (Write these three words on the board.) Repeat to students that both of the king's decisions will be in accordance with the law, but only one must be chosen.

4. Organize work to discuss the situation in groups.

During the discussion, it is necessary to develop the most strong arguments to support your position, select speakers. The speech should be brief. (You can use the principle - “one speaker - one argument”. Each speaker has 1 minute. In total, no more than five arguments can be put forward, i.e. five speakers must speak).

It is advisable to structure the speech in accordance with the POPS formula (it is better if this scheme is reproduced on the board or a separate poster).

When working with schoolchildren, you can give examples of constructing a speech “for” and “against”, for example:

For pardon:

“I am in favor of pardoning revolutionaries, because killing them is
means creating a danger to the life of the young king. Companions of revolutionaries, acting on the principle of “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” can take revenge
for the comrades and kill the new tsar, therefore, the revolutionaries must
have mercy!”

Against pardon:

“I believe that criminals should be executed, because the punishment should correspond to the crime according to the principle of “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” for example, in this case, the revolutionaries took the life of the Tsar and it would be fair to do the same with them. Therefore, the king’s killers must be deprived of their lives - executed!”

Inform that groups will have 10-15 minutes to prepare.

During preparation, approach the groups and clarify whether they understand the task and the conditions for presenting the results.

5. At the end of the preparation, you can ask everyone to imagine themselves in the meeting room State Council Russian Empire. Remind us again of the rules - 1 minute for each representative of the groups to speak with one argument.

Give the floor to group representatives. Keep track of time and stop speakers exceeding the limit.

Compare the guys' arguments with the arguments of Vladimir Solovyov, Leo Tolstoy and Konstantin Pobedonostsev. pay attention to Additional information about these figures and their positions.

6. After completing the discussion, you can tell how Alexander III actually acted:

Alexander III did not pardon the condemned.

He did not respond to the letters written to him by the great Russian philosopher and the great Russian writer, but only “commanded... that Mr. Solovyov... be reprimanded for the inappropriate judgments expressed by him in public lecture“, and Count Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy “ordered to say... that if there had been an attempt on his life, he could forgive, but he has no right to forgive his father’s murderers.”

Everyone can assess the consequences for themselves: those executed became heroes in the revolutionary environment, the wave of revolutionary terror grew, the authorities became brutal in response, the constitution was never adopted. Russia confidently entered a period of riots, revolutions, the overthrow of the monarchy and civil war, on July 17, 1918, son Alexandra III- Nicholas II and his family were executed in Yekaterinburg by decision of the revolutionary government.

7. Summarize.

Ask several students to answer the questions:

- What did we do in class today, what activities did we participate in?

- What norms influence legal decision-making?

- What should you think about when making a legal decision?

- What did you learn in this lesson?

2. Task “Moral meaning”

(modification of the moral dilemma method)

Target:formation of orientation towards moral and ethicalsome content of actions and events.

Age: 11 - 15 years old.

Academic disciplines: humanitarian (literature, history,social science, etc.).

Task completion form: work in groups followed by joint discussion in class.

Materials:examples of moral dilemmas.

Task description: Students are invited to find as homework in a work of art, in publications in the media mass media or in a country's history books, a description of such an event that can be seen as a moral dilemma. Students submit their written work and present it to the class. From the proposed works, the teacher chooses Some of the most interesting for students. They are being discussed during a specially organized group discussion.

Instructions:a moral dilemma must concern the sphere of relationships between people and have alternatives new decisions depending on the interests of the participants. Story about a moral dilemma should include a description of the content, its participants, their intentions and actions. To analyze the dilemma, you need to use the already familiar scheme for analyzing situations of moral choice. Possible solutions are discussed and it is revealed what students would do in these situations in the place of her heroes.

Evaluation criteria:

compliance of the content of the described actions and events with the criterion of a moral dilemma;

Ability to listen to the arguments of other participantsdiscussions and take them into account in your position;

Correlating the level of development of moral consciousness with content of a moral dilemma.

3. Reception “Creation of social advertising »

Target:development of citizenship,moral consciousness through discussion and argumentation.

Age: 11 - 15 years old.

Academic disciplines: humanitarian (literature, history, social studies, etc.).

Task completion form: work in groups.

Task description: The task is of a creative project nature. Students are told that there are different moral standards. Organizing teaching statements going around in a circle, the teacher formulates the content of moral norms (fairness, care, honesty, mutual assistance, equality, etc.). Students are asked to independently name other moral standards that are encountered in life. The name of each norm is written down on a separate sheet of paper.

Then students are divided into groups of 3-4 people. EachThe given group receives a task - to write an advertising text “Five reasons why one should fulfill a moral norm” for one of the norms (the presenter pulls out a sheet with the name of the norm and distributes it to the subgroups as an assignment) - and prepares for 10 minutes.

The guys need to think about it in a bright, convincing way. form, present five arguments justifying why mu this norm must be carried out. During the presentation of a social advertising project by one of the groups (advertising can be textual, game, symbolic, etc.), the rest of the students participate in the discussion both as opponents and as defenders of the project. Everything is considered from in terms of how convincing a group of arguments is indicates the need to comply with a particular norm. Based on the results of the presentation, a vote is taken and the the best option social advertising.

Material:list of moral standards.

Instructions:The teacher tells the children that, for example, The TV channel has decided to conduct a series of programs on moral issues and the class was ordered to prepare one of the programs, in which, within 5 minutes, they need to give five arguments in favor of the fact that one or another moral norm should be followed. The TV channel named several moral standards that it considersNot important: fairness, caring, honesty, equality. The teacher asks to name other moral standards.

Evaluation criteria:

the ability to fully and adequately characterize the content of moral norms;

Character, persuasiveness and consistency of argument tations;

Emotional modality of representing norms;

4. Technology for holding a civil forum

Civil forum - this is one of the ways for schoolchildren to participate in public life through discussionimportant, socially significant problems.

The essence of the technique is thorough multilateral analysis of three or four approaches to solving any social problem significant problem during a guided dialogue.

The technology of organizing and maintaining a civil forum is a technology dialogue communication . Participants in the civil forum mustbe open to other people's ideas. The important thing is that during the forum there is an opportunity to discuss the problem with different sides, discuss the afterbirthconsequences of different approaches to solving it. At the same time, one of the participants may change their opinion in some way.

As a result of the forum, participants do not necessarily have to come to any singleopinion. The purpose of it is to find common ground for joint action.

A civil forum as a dialogue form of discussion is fundamentally different from technology debates, which is also widely used in civic education. Understanding these differences is necessary for both the forum leader and its participants.

Dialogue	Debate
One party listens to the other in order to understand, find common ground and accept an agreement	One side listens to the other in order to find flaws in its position and oppose it with its arguments
Dialogue expands and perhaps changes the participant's point of view.	Debate strengthens own point participant's point of view.
The dialogue provokes introspection of one's own position.	Debates provoke criticism from the other side.
Dialogue calls for temporary “alienation” from personal beliefs	Debates call for a decisive and uncompromising defense of one's own beliefs
In dialogue, they look for the basis of an agreement	Debates look for clear differences
In dialogue, each side looks for strong points in the position of the other.	In a debate, each side looks for the other's flaws and weaknesses.
Dialogue involves real concern for the other person, the search for such forms of expressing one’s position that allow one not to offend the other	Debate involves parrying an opposing position without regard to feelings or attitudes; in practice, sometimes this turns out to be associated with moments of condemnation or humiliation of another

A significant advantage of the civil forum in terms of cultivating the qualities of a tolerant personality is that it allows you to learn to express your opinion without becoming someone’s enemy.

Civil forum is used to discuss complex issues that concern the interests of owls of the whole community (for example, class or school, or city) and for the solution of which it is necessary joint actions of people .

Not every topic can be a problem for consideration within the framework of the “Civic Forum” methodology. The chosen topic must have certain characteristics, for example:

1) it must be a problem for which there is more than one effective approach to solving it in society;

2) this must be a problem for which to fully perceive and solve separate groups people must act together;

3) this is a problem on which public discussion is not completed;

4) it may be an issue where the debate has stalled and a different approach is needed to move the issue forward.

5) it is desirable that this be a problem in which the solution to the issue requires a discussion of personal priorities and the motives behind the choice, purely technical or administrative issues.

Inappropriate select issues for the civil forum that meet the following characteristics:

· the problem requires an immediate, urgent response (for example, we are talking about an acute crisis of a national or local scale);

· the problem requires special knowledge;

· a problem for which there is already a clear solution plan and a choice has been made;

· a problem affecting a narrow range of interests of a small group of people;

· a problem that needs to be answered “yes” or not answered at all.

Here are a few examples of problems that can serve as a topic for a civil forum in an audience of high school students:

· "Military service: what kind of army do we need?"

· “Loss of humanity in modern society: how to live on?”

· “How to stop the spread of extremism among young people?”

· "School education: what should it be like?"

Participate in a civil forum on equal rights can not only schoolchildren, but also parents, teachla, representatives of the public and authorities, since they are all members of the same local community.

An issue for consideration in a civil forum can be selected based on student proposals.or teachers. It is necessary that this problem worries representatives of all categories of forum participants (for example, schoolchildren and teachers) and can be solvedonly through joint efforts;

There are different approaches to solving the problem.

The role of the presenter

Leading the civil forumcan be both a student and a teacher; a group of presenters can work. They should do well in advancestudy the rules, prepare questions, plan the time of the forum.

Presenter's goal- facilitate a full and comprehensive discussion of the problem.

· The facilitator must study the problem before presenting it to the forum participants in order to to “stay on topic” and give participants the opportunity to discuss truly all sides of the problem.

· It should steer the discussion away from telling stories from personal experience to consider approaches To solving the problem.

· It is necessary to remain neutral when presenting each approach; be careful in expressing yourself own opinions, creating a climate of uncritical, non-judgmental participation;

· Do not stop the discussion until the participants understand what the conflict is, the differences between the approaches.

· The facilitator needs to remember that a forum rarely ends in complete agreement or disagreement. Usually it works out in the endjust find some general idea about the problem, the need and goals of its solution.

Preparing for the forum

To present different approaches to solving a problem, it is advisable to ask to prepareindividual children (parents, other forum participants).

At the stage of preparation for the forum, the presenter and/or group of organizers must prepare some materials representing problem. It is important that these are materials that represent only the objecttive balanced information and not containing evaluations (description of the situation, statisticstechnical data, results of sociological surveys, existing rules in this area, etc.).

Selected materials for discussion can be presented in the form of a brochure,placed on the information stand, “posted” on a specialized page of the school website.

If the materials are complex and voluminous, it is desirable that forum participants have the opportunity to get acquainted with themin advance (for example, a week before the forum) . Otherwise, you can propose them directly during the preliminary discussion stage.

To conduct a civil forum, the audience should be prepared so that participants can sit in a circle or at a round table so that everyone can see everyone. The facilitator may need a board and chalk orWhatman paper and markers for writing.

GENERALIZED PLAN FOR THE CIVIL FORUM

When holding a forum, you can use the following plan:

Step 1. Identifying the problem

After presenting a short piece of material selected to present the problem, the facilitator asks students a series of questions (examples of questions are given below). It is advisable to write down the answers briefly on one half of the board or on the first sheet of paper (you can use a computer and a multimedia projector instead).

During the discussion, it is important to focus the participants’ attention on the ultimate goal: “As a result of the discussion, we should have a common multifaceted picture of the problem. We have to determine what approaches can exist to this problem, and what are the boundaries of mutually acceptable actions.”

Possible questions for organizing a preliminary discussion :

1. What do these words (events, actions) say (testify)?

· When you hear the words... (words that reflect the problem are called), what associations do you have?

· What do you personally think and feel about this?

2. Why is this a problem? (answers in an extremely brief form are recorded on the second half of the board or on a second sheet of paper).

· Which aspect of the problem we have named is most important to you? Why is it important?

· Why does this problem bother you?

3. Do we all understand this problem in the same way?

· Are there people who think differently? (Whose other interests are affected by this problem? What would theycould you tell if you were here? If you belonged to a different social (cultural, national, religious, professional, etc.) group, how would your position change? (answers are added to sheet number 1)

· Why might this problem bother them? (answers are added to sheet number 2)

4. Try to formulate the problem that we saw? (What is this problem? Name it. How can we define it in one sentence?).

The presenter explains:to name a problem means to indicate its essence without detailing it. The definition should beso that everyone can agree with him. After the problem is named, you can suggest going back and lookingDoes the brief description of the problem match what the participants said about the nature of the problem and what exactly concerns them?

Step 2 - finding approaches to the problem

The goal is to prepare the problem to present it to other people by identifying different approaches To her.

1. The presenter asks:

· Is it possible to divide the answers that we gave and wrote down on the board (sheet of paper) into several groups independing on the interests, what interests do they reflect? (it is advisable to select 3-5 groups)

· What answers can be combined? (The presenter can mark groups of answers with iconsdifferent colors or write them out on separate sheets.)

· Do the resulting groups really represent different approaches to the problem?

2. Students are divided into approximately equal groups in accordance with the allocated number of approaches to the problem. The group is asked to complete the following tasks::

· name this approach;

· briefly describe it;

· give 3-4 arguments for and against this approach;

· provide a list of possible actions.

3. Then the presenter returns to the problem itself and asks to formulate a question for discussionin such a way that it reflects the essence of the problem as the participants understand it. It is important highlight some contradiction.

· What is the biggest dilemma, the biggest contradiction?

· What needs to be decided?

Step 3 - discussion (actually a “civil forum”)

The discussion directly within the civil forum can be structured as follows.

1. The presenter announces the beginning of the “civil forum” and announces its goals.

2. The presenter announces Forum Rules:

· everyone has the opportunity to participate in the discussion (accordingly, the task of the facilitator is to involve everyone in the discussion);

· no one seeks dominance;

· listening is no less important than speaking;

· everyone understands that a civil forum is a dialogue, not a debate;

· all expressed approaches and positions are discussed;

· participants can address each other directly, and not just the presenter;

· the discussion should focus on approaches to solving the problem (the facilitator can intervene to change the direction of the conversation if the conversation has gone in the wrong direction).

· The atmosphere of friendly, interested discussion is maintained.

3. If necessary, you need to agree on the terms that the participants will useforum (Differences in the understanding of terms may prevent you from seeing the essence of the problem and different approaches to solving it).

Display a video clip (possibly filmed by the students themselves) or a video collage;

A brief summary of a situation that clearly reflects the problem;

Brief mention of materials read

etc.

First, a short introduction to the approach is given.yes (this function can be assigned to individual participants in advance), then the facilitator asks the participants to tell what are the positive and negative sides they see in this approach ; what could be its consequences.

If none of the participants finds arguments in favor of an approach, you can ask him: “Whymany people choose this path? What could they say in support of him?

To support the discussion, the facilitator can ask the following questions:

1) What is of value to us in the situation we are considering?

· What worries you when you think about this problem?

· What attracts you to the proposed approach?

· What makes this approach good or bad?

2) What are the consequences, costs, advantages (benefits) of different approaches?

· What are the possible consequences of the actions you propose?

· What arguments do you think could be made against the approach you presented?

· Whether there is a weak sides this method of action?

· I understand that you don't like the approach you're objecting to. But what do you think its supporters can argue for?

· Could there be anything constructive (useful) in the approach you are criticizing?

3) What is the essence of the conflict that we are trying to understand?

· What do you see as the fundamental differences between the approaches?

· Why is this problem so difficult to solve?

4) Can we develop some common opinion or course of action regarding the issue at hand?

· Which course of action seems best to you?

· Which consequences of this decision are desirable for us and which are not? (this issue is one of the most important for the civil forum).

· What do we as individuals and as a community of people want to do to solve this problem?

· If activities we enjoy have negative consequences, will we still view them positively?

Practice shows that it is not easy for teenagers and young people to master the skills of civilized dialogue, to be tolerant and attentive to each other. The most frequently violated rule during a discussion is “We listen and hear each other.” Quite often, the reaction to this or that opinion during the discussion is expressed something like this: “What nonsense are you talking about!” In addition to participating in a civil forum, special training exercises (for example, the “Listen in Silence” exercise) can help overcome these shortcomings.

6. Summing up.

The presenter asks:

· What have you learned about what other people think about this issue?

· Have you seen any new aspects of the problem?

· How has your view of other people's points of view changed?

· Can you identify something common in the reasoning of all participants in the discussion? (Are there positions that most of the participants support?)

· What is the contradiction that makes this problem so difficult to resolve?

· What can we do as a community of people?

· Can we say that the discussion of the problem showed our interdependence? Why?

· What else do we need to continue to have a productive discussion on this issue?

· Why is this a public problem?

· What can follow next on the path to resolving this problem?

In the process of participating in a civil forum, its participants gain an understanding of how different people look at the problem being discussed. Forming attention and sensitivity to these moments is a necessary component of education tolerance in teenagers.

Step 4 - p moving from discussion to action

This part of the work, in principle, can be carried out directly at the final stage of the forum. However, given the emotional stress experienced by forum participants, it is better if it is somewhat delayed. However, the interval between the forum and this stage of work should be short (2-3 days).

Students should be asked two key questions:

· How can we use the knowledge that we gained during the forum? (For example: release a wall newspaper based on the results of the forum; perform at different classes with a story aboutongoing forum; post information on the problem on the school website, etc.)

· What actions can be taken based on those common views, which emerged in during the forum? (Express concern about the problem by contacting the authorities; saga deeper study of the problem; repeat the holding of a civil forum with the invitation of a wider range of people with different approaches to the problem, experts; organize social project; create public organization and so on.).

It should be especially emphasized that the discussion of a particular problem during a civil forum can become the basis for putting forward an idea and the subsequent implementation of a truly significant social project.

Practical task to section 6.

Suggest a possible topic for holding civic forums with students in grades 9-11.

Methodological developments of a number these topics can be found in: given in the manual prepared in Bryansk in 1997.

Culture

You are a very experienced doctor, and you have five dying patients on your hands, each of whom needs different organ transplants in order to survive. Unfortunately, at the moment there is not a single organ available for transplantation. It so happens that there is another 6 person who is dying from a fatal disease, and if he is not treated, he will die much earlier than the others. If the sixth patient dies, you can use his organs to save five others. However, you have a medicine at your disposal that can save the life of the sixth patient. You:

Wait until the sixth patient dies and then use his organs for transplantation;

You will save the life of the sixth patient, while others will not receive the organs they need.

If you chose the second option, then, knowing that the medicine would only slightly delay the date of his death, would you still do the same? Why?

8. Robber Robin Hood

You witnessed a man rob a bank, but then he did something unusual and unexpected with the money. He handed them over to an orphanage that was very poorly run, dilapidated and lacking proper nutrition, proper care, water and amenities. This money greatly benefited the orphanage, and it went from poor to prosperous. You:

Call the police, although they will probably take the money from the orphanage;

You won't do anything if you leave both the robber and the orphanage alone.

7. Friend's wedding

Your best friend or girlfriend is getting married. The ceremony will begin in one hour, however, on the eve of coming to the wedding, you found out that your friend’s chosen one (chosen one) had connections on the side. If your friend connects his life with this person, he is unlikely to be faithful, but on the other hand, if you tell him about this, you will upset the wedding. Can you tell your friend what you found out or not?

6. Plagiarism of the report

You are the head of the student council and are faced with making a difficult decision regarding one of the graduates. This girl has always been a worthy student. Throughout all her years of study, she received only high grades, she has many friends, and ideal behavior. However, towards the end school year She fell ill and did not attend school for some time. She missed three weeks of classes, and when she returned, she was informed that in one of the subjects she was not enough to graduate with excellent marks. She was so desperate that, having found a report on the necessary topic on the Internet, she passed it off as her own. Her teacher caught her doing this and sent her to you. If you decide that it is plagiarism, then it will not receive a high mark, and therefore will not be able to qualify for budget training at the university of your dreams. What would you do?

5. Fountain of Youth

Your loved one is immortal because he and his family drank from the fountain of youth, unsuspectingly. You love him very much and know that this is your destiny. However, the only way staying with him is also drinking from the fountain of youth. But if you do this, all your family and friends, as well as all your acquaintances, will grow old and eventually die. On the other hand, if you do not drink from the spring, you will grow old and eventually die, and the person you are with will never see you again and will be condemned to eternal loneliness. Which would you choose?

4. Concentration camp

You are a concentration camp prisoner. The sadistic guard is about to hang your son who tried to escape and tells you to push the stool out from under him. He tells you that if you don't do this, he will kill your other son, who is another innocent prisoner. You have no doubt that he will do exactly as he says. What will you do?

3. Son and granddaughter

Much to your horror, your son lies tied up on the tracks as the train approaches. It so happens that you have time to use the switch and direct the train in the other direction, thereby saving your son. However, on the other side lies the bound granddaughter, the daughter of this particular son of yours. Your son begs you not to kill his daughter or touch the switch. What will you do?

2. Sacrifice of a son

A very evil, psychologically unstable man tried to kill your son when he was very young, but then, having killed the child's uncle and aunt who were looking after him, he never got to the baby. After the murder, you fled into hiding, but now you have discovered that the prophecy has come true, and that part of the killer's soul has moved into your child. In order to overcome this evil and defeat this man, your son must go to him and allow himself to be killed. Otherwise, after some time, your son, with part of the soul of a villain, may himself become one. The son courageously accepts his fate and decides to go to the villain in order to bring peace. You as a parent:

Hold him because you feel you have to protect him;

Accept his choice.

1. Friendship

Jim works at large company, he is responsible for hiring employees. His friend Paul has applied for a job, but there are several people who are more qualified than Paul and have a higher level of knowledge and skills. Jim wants to give this position to Paul, however, he feels guilty because he should be impartial. He tells himself that this is the essence of morality. However, he soon changed his mind and decided that friendship gave the moral right to be partial in some matters. So he gives the position to Paul. Was he right?