Premium
Moral Judgment in Extreme Social Contexts: Soldiers Who Refuse to Fight and Physicians Who Strike? 1
Author(s) -
Linn Ruth
Publication year - 1988
Publication title -
journal of applied social psychology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.822
H-Index - 111
eISSN - 1559-1816
pISSN - 0021-9029
DOI - 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1988.tb01199.x
Subject(s) - lawrence kohlberg's stages of moral development , consistency (knowledge bases) , psychology , action (physics) , social psychology , premise , morality , competence (human resources) , military service , moral reasoning , law , political science , epistemology , philosophy , physics , geometry , mathematics , quantum mechanics
This paper compares two examples of moral action within extreme social contexts: the refusal of Israeli reserve soldiers to perform their military service during the war in Lebanon (1982–1983), and the refusal of Israeli physicians to provide medical care during a “labor war”, that is a strike. This paper examines the cognitive developmental premise that with an increase in the actors' stage of moral development there will be a greater consistency between hypothetical and actual moral reasoning (Kohlberg, 1984). Blasi's (1983) concept of personal integrity, that is, the consistency between the actors' judgment concerning the morality of an action and the action that was actually performed, is examined as well. The findings show that the “refusing” soldiers manifested stage consistency in their action, whereas the physicians failed to justify their action in line with their moral competence. Whereas the soldiers viewed their action as highly moral, the physicians viewed their strike action as unfortunate but necessary. The motivation of the two groups of actors to act in line with their behavioral choices is discussed.