The question that this section will address is how people who are exposed to acts of violence will respond in moral situations and whether both the care and justice orientations can be identified in the participants’ moral thinking. Ward (1988:175) noted that violence, being one of the unfortunate realities of life, has everything to do with the way in which morality is perceived. In her view, it was pointless to address any issues regarding morality without addressing the issue of violence and violent behaviour (Ward 1988:175). She further noted that it was necessary to look at the gender roles when it comes to violence in society (Ward 1988:175).79 Ward (1988:177) attempted to investigate the morality of participants who lived in areas that were prone to violent occurrences. She was interested in what the participants were thinking about the violence they encountered in their lives and their immediate surroundings, and how it affected the way they thought about morality (Ward 1988:177).
79 According to her statistics, Ward (1988:175) claimed that more often than not, men were both the primary victims and the primary perpetrators when it came to violence, while women were increasingly becoming the victims of violence, not only indirectly when they lose their male family members due to violence, but also directly when they are direct victims of violence. The number of violent encounters by women has, however, increased dramatically (Ward 1988:176).
92 For Ward (1988:177), it was problematic that people living in areas of violence were often considered to be poorly educated and not as skilled as others in society. They were often considered to have a lesser sense of moral reasoning and often perceived as members of society who were not as socially developed as others (Ward 1988:177). This led to their opinions about morality being undervalued and usually not considered (Ward 1988:177). Consequently, Ward (1988:177) made an effort to address this issue by conducting a study wherein the participants shared their experiences of their lives while living in a violent society. She worked with a group of adolescent participants from schools in areas that were known to be exposed to acts of violence (Ward 1988:178). They were asked to take part in a course that asked of them to wrestle with moral issues that were applicable to their context and timeframe such as Apartheid in South Africa, environmental issues, issues concerning race and racism, the Holocaust, and violence in the region of Central America (Ward 1988:178). The purpose of this was partly that the participants may ask some critical questions about themselves and about the world in which they lived where social and moral guidelines were being obscured by violence and even to inspire some of the participants to be a positive influence in their community (Ward 1988:178). Just like the justice and care orientations were previously helpful in addressing differing approaches to moral thinking in certain situations, so this study focused on the two different moral orientations when it came to violence (Ward 1988:179).
Ward (1988:182) shared an experience of two participants, one man and one woman, who shared an almost identical story of being a witness to a violent occurrence where a gun ended up being fired among a group of individuals. The group of individuals involved was known to the male participant, but not to the female participant (Ward 1988:182). When they were asked why this event took place and whether they knew who was to blame, there were two differing moral judgements that came to the fore (Ward 1988:182-183). Interestingly enough, the male participant showed clear signs of the care orientation being used in his moral reasoning, while the woman showed clear signs of using the justice
93 orientation in her reasoning (Ward 1988:183). While both of them judged the violent event in itself as a wrongful deed, the male participant was concerned with the wellbeing of the person who fired the gun, the people who may have tried to mediate the situation, and of the children who may have been in the area (Ward 1988:183). Even though the female participant mentioned the immediate danger of the onlookers, her concern focused on issues of justice by stating that the people involved were adults and that they should have been able to tell the difference between what is right and what is wrong (Ward 1988:183). Ward (1988:184) recognised both the care orientation and the justice orientation among these participants’ moral reasoning and stressed the importance of allowing them to reason in differing ways in order to develop a sustaining moral sense that will help them to think responsibly when they are faced with moral dilemmas. She regarded both the justice and the care approach as valid moral orientations for educators to build upon in an effort to help students to think responsibly and morally reflective in life (Ward 1988:184).
In her findings during the course of the study, Ward (1988:184) noted that a lot of the violent events that took place were caused by a human relationship that had gone wrong. Some participants chose to share experiences where they encountered violence psychologically, but most of the participants chose to share stories of violence that involved physical violence (Ward 1988:184). These experiences of violence occurred in neighbourhoods, family homes, schools, and violence referred to in the media (Ward 1988:184). When it came to the participants who showed a moral orientation leaning toward justice with regards to morality and violence, Ward (1988:185) noted three things; first, participants often tried to justify their actions as getting back at someone or retaliating for what they had done to them. Second, violence often occurred as a result of someone being undeservedly experiencing punishment for something that they did not do (Ward 1988:185). Third, violence often broke out in situations where people did
94 something that was wrong according to accepted behaviour (Ward 1988:186).80 The participants who showed a moral orientation leaning toward care often mentioned how violence caused others to feel hurt, pain, or suffering and that they felt that it was morally wrong to have these people go through this type of experience (Ward 1988:188). The participants who showed care logic often struggled more to accept the violence and often showed a greater unease with violence than those who held a justice oriented morality (Ward 1988:188). Most of the participants who shared in the care orientation held the belief that violence could have been prevented if people only spoke to each other about what was bothering them (Ward 1988:189).They were also able to grasp that the effects of violence often stretch further than only the people directly involved (Ward 1988:188).
An interesting occurrence was when some of the participants showed both the justice and the care orientation equally in their moral reason concerning violence (Ward 1988:191).81 Ward (1988:191) explained that although previous works had indicated this to be possible, these participants showed that it was possible to hold both the orientations concurrently in their experiences of violence. She believed that this confirmation enriched the nature of morality and violence, which would have been incompletely described had both orientations not been considered simultaneously (Ward 1988:191).82 Ward (1988:196) introduced another possible option in the integrated moral orientation. This, she claimed, was different to the case of participants merely showing an ability to use both the
80 Ward (1988:187) noted that when it came to retributive justice, a lot of teens felt that it ought to be justifiable. She called it “the eye-for-an-eye philosophy” (Ward 1988:187) and it was a perspective shared by many of the participants (Ward 1988:187).
81 Ward (1988:191) explained that in order to qualify to be both justice and care oriented, the participant had to show signs of both orientations in combination and had to clearly articulate both the care and justice concerns that she had set out in advance.
82 Examples of this is seen where a care perspective is firmly held, but in the an effort to protect the self or another, violence is justified, even though it is against the nature of care to enforce hurt upon another person (Ward 1988:193). This option is therefore only implemented when all other options have been exhausted and there is no other option left (Ward 1988:193).
95 justice and care orientations for it involved “integrally interwoven themes of justice and care” (Ward 1988:194). This was ultimately considered to be a more complex moral orientation (Ward 1988:194). This complex interwoven perspective of morality in the context of violence would, for instance, set limits for violence when it may have been justifiable for a variety of reasons (Ward 1988:194). If justice and care were interwoven or limitations for violence were set in order to justify a certain amount of violence, the perspective was considered to part of the integrated moral orientation (Ward 1988:194).83
Ward (1988:196) noted that a justice orientation was more often than not chosen when the violent event took place within a neighbourhood. Unlike the cases of violence at home or at school, the people involved in the violent events in neighbourhoods were often unknown or vaguely familiar to the participant, which may have caused the participant to speak in terms of the justice orientation as a result of the lack of relationship (Ward 1988:196). In the same way that the justice orientation was almost always chosen with the occurrence of neighbourhood violence, so the care orientation was predominantly chosen when it came to violent events in the family (Ward 1988:197-198). This was not limited to any specific ethnic or racial group, but happened across all boundaries (Ward 1988:198).84 Regardless of the moral orientation that was eventually displayed, it
83 An example given by Ward (1988:194) was that of a participant who noted that crime was picking up in the area. He mentioned how old ladies were being robbed after leaving the bank and considered this to be wrong (Ward 1988:194). He imagined what it would be like for him if that old lady happened to be his grandmother and mentioned that he would do anything to in his ability to help her (Ward 1988:194). He said that it is important to care for family and that respect has to be shown for other people, because that is what is expected of good citizens (Ward 1988:194). Ward (1988:195) explained that this participant’s moral outrage stemmed from his connection that he felt for his own family. Even though this was happening to strangers, he was able to imagine what it would have been like if that person had been someone whom he had cared for (Ward 1988:195). Out of his care for those in need is interwoven his justice orientation arose; due to the fact that he respected other people, he wanted to do what was considered to be right (Ward 1988:195).
84 One of the aspects that was missing from this study which I would have liked to know more about, is whether the orientations were gendered at all. From the overall study it seemed like the orientation was not necessarily chosen based on the gender of the person, but by the violent event itself and whether people were known to the people involved in the violent event.
96 was always clear that all of the participants had a strong moral outcry against acts of violence that they perceived (Ward 1988:197). Ward (1988:200) concluded that this study had provided enough information to confirm that these participants, who lived in violent areas, had a definite ability to show both the justice and the care orientations when it comes to morality, which provided an investigative peculiarity that had not been analysed before this study.85 Ward’s study on violence not only developed new categories in terms of the combination of the justice and care orientations, but also suggested that the care orientation could envision violent situations and accordingly help with the prevention of violence (Gilligan 1988:iv). In the previous two sections, the morality and moral interpretation of people with a lower socio-economic status and people exposed to violent-prone areas were discussed. On the other end of the spectrum is the question of moral orientation and people with higher social status. In the next section, the moral orientation of people classified as people with high social status will be discussed. An example of someone with high social status who faces constant moral formation is a medical practitioner.