Summer School CESPEC, 12.-15. Sept.

2017, Cuneo
“The Humanities in the Contemporary World”, VII Education and Citizenship Panel

We listen to those in power and

We talk to those below us.
Moral(-democratic) Competence
But if we want a democratic way of living Its Nature and Relevance, and the Need to Foster It
together in this world, we must also learn

To speak to those in power and

To listen to those below us! Georg Lind

Georg.Lind@uni-konstanz.de

1 2

Democracy as a moral ideal

"A democracy is more than a form of government:

it is primarily a mode of associated living, of
The nature of moral(-democratic) competence conjoint communicated experience."

3 4
 Therefore, in a democracy
"... there is a need for reasoned argument,
with oneself and with others in dealing with
conflicting claims..." (p. x)
and a need for "engagement in reasoning
about a subject on which it is ... very difficult
to speak." (p. 4)
Amartya Sen (2009). The idea of justice. Cambridge.
The two aspects of moral-democratic behavior:
Moral orientations and moral competence
P Moral orientations (affective aspect)
< Moral principles, ideals, attitudes, values like democracy,
justice, cooperation, freedom...
P Moral competence (cognitive aspect)
< The ability to solve problems and conflicts
< on the basis of one’s moral principles
< through thinking and discussion,
< instead of through violence, deceit, or bowing down to
others.

5 6

Methods of measuring moral competence Two layers of the moral self:

P Classical psychometric methods are objective, but invalid.
Moral consciousness and behavior
Use external standards and meaning-less (atomistic) data.
Affective Aspect Cognitive Aspect
P Narrative: Moral Judgment Interview (MJI) by Kohlberg et al.
< Advantages: meaning-full (structural) The object of the Moral Judgment Interview (MJI)
< Disadvantages: subjective scoring of verbal reasoning, external
standards for assessent, confounded measurement of moral Layer of conscious Ethical sentiments Ethical judgment
orientations and competence aspects, unclear relation between reasoning and judgment and principles and reasoning
verbal moral reasoning and behavior; time-consuming (Moral philosophy; ethics) as verbalized in a conversation
adminstration and scoring. Layer of manifest behavior Moral orientations Moral competence
and feelings
P Experimental: Moral Competence Test (MCT) by Lind (Moral psychology) as manifested in a pattern of behavior
< Advantages: meaning-full (structural), objective scoring of
manifest behavior, internal standards for assessment,
The object of the Moral Competence Test (MCT)
simultaneous measurement of moral orientations and moral
competence, quick administration and scoring. * Adapted from: Georg Lind (2016). How to teach morality... Berlin: Logos.
< Disadvantages: Unknown.
7 8
 Excerpt from the
MCT
MCT Structural scoring of manifest behavior:
Six Pro-Arguments Measuring the ability to judge arguments by their moral
quality instead of by their opinion-agreement
Two Response Patterns Manifesting Different Degrees of Moral Competence
(one story only)

Judgment:
Opinion- “The decision was right” “The decision was right”
agreement: Contra Pro
Contra Pro
Arguments of
Type 1 W
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
W
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
W W
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
Type 2 W
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
W
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
W W
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
Type 3 W
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
W
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
W W
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
Type 4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
W W
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
W W
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
Type 5 W
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
W
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
W W
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
Type 6 W
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
W W W
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4

C-score: 0.4 C-score: 92.2

Moral competence: low Moral competence: high
Opinion Agreement: high Opinion Agreement: low

Lind, G. (1982). Experimental Questionnaires: A new approach to personality research. In: A. Kossakowski & K.
Obuchowski, eds., Progress in psychology of personality, pp. 132-144. Amsterdam, NL: North-Holland.
Lind, G, (2016). How to teach morality. Promoting deliberation and discussion. Reducing violence and deceit. Berlin:
Logos.(chapter 4).

9 10

MCT Internal standards for scoring

The moral competence score [C] is scored in accordance with
the participant’s own orientations, not with external norms
Example: Different moral orientations, but same moral competence
Person C Person B
“Do you accept or reject...”
Arguments of Contra Pro
“Do you accept or reject...””
Contra Pro The relevance of moral competence for democracy
Type 1 W
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
W
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 W
W -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
Type 2 W
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 W
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 -4 W
-3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 W
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
Type 3 W
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
W
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 -4 W
W -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
Type 4 W-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 W
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 -4 -3W
W
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
Type 5 W
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 W
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
W +3 +4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0W
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
Type 6 W-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
W
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
W
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +1 +2 +3 W
+4

C-score: 92.2 C-score: 92.2

Range: 0 to 100 Range: 0 to 100
Modal moral orientation: Type 1 Modal moral orientation: Type 6
Note: The “Types” correspond to the six Kohlbergian Stage-Orientations

Lind, G. & Nowak, E. (2015). Kohlberg’s unnoticed dilemma – The external assessment of internal moral
competence? In: B. Zizek, D. Garz & E. Nowak, eds., Kohlberg revisited, pp 139 - 154. Rotterdam:
Sense Publisher.

11 12
Experimental findings: Moral competence has a strong
impact on democratic behavior
P Helping others (MJI)
P Being able to make quick decisions (MCT)
P Keeping a contract (MJI)
P Obeying rules and norms (MJI)
P Resisting illegitimate authority (MJI, MCT)
P Engaging in democratic protest (MJI)
P Rejecting violence as a means of politics (MCT)
P Resisting drug consumption (MCT)
P Social behavior in the classroom (MJI)
P Ability and motivation to learn (MCT)
P Student-oriented teaching (MCT)
13
The need to foster moral competence
15
Living together in a democracy requires citizens with at
least some degree of moral competence
High level of moral competence: Democratic form of living
Can solve conflicts through together is possible
thinking and discussion.
Average C = 20
Lack of moral competence:
Can solve conflicts only through
An autocratic form of
violence, deceit, or bowing down to
government is needed
others.
For references see:
Lind (2016). How to teach Habermas, J. (1990). Moral consciousness and communicative action. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Univ. Press.
morality... Lind, G. (2016). How to teach morality. Fostering deliberation and discussion. Reducing violence and deceit .Berlin:
Logos.
14
Origin and growth of moral competence
P While moral orientations are inborn, moral competence needs
to be developed.
P The growth of moral competence requires a favorable learning
environment: Opportunities for responsibility-taking, reflection,
and discussion.
P “Natural” opportunities are lacking.
P Schools should provide opportunities for developing moral-
democratic competence.
P Counter-forces to moral-democratic development:
< Lacking learning opportunities, high-stakes achievement tests,
religious dogmatism.
16
 Without favorable learning opportunities, moral An effective method:
competence does not grow The Konstanz Method of Dilemma Discussion (KMDD)® /
Discussion-Theater
The Impact of Age on Moral Judgment Competence
F(5,2348)=1,55; p<,1719; N = 3102
40
Participants of a KMDD-workshop-seminar
32,6
31,8
31 30,9
30,2
30 28,5

Source:
C-Score (MJT)

Lind, G. (2015). Favorable

learning environments for
20 moral competence
development – A multiple
intervention study with
nearly 3.000 students in a
10 higher education context.
International Journal of
University Teaching and
Faculty Development, 4, 4.
0 (https://www.novapublisher
18 under 19 to 20 21 to 22 23 to 24 25 to 26 27 over s.com/catalog/product_info.
Age G roup php?products_id=53411)
Info: https://www.uni-konstanz.de/ag-moral/
17 18

The efficacy of the KMDD-style teaching References

One semester, university students
Impact of KMDD-style and Traditional Teaching on Moral
Judgment Competence
F(1,1166)=72,76; p<,0000; r = .33; N = 2602; ES = 13,1
60

50 46,7

40
C-Score (MJT)

33
31 31,6

30

20

10
Traditional
w/o Dil Disc
KMDD-style
0
Pretest Posttest
with Dil Disc More: https://www.uni-konstanz.de/ag-moral/
19 20