Moral development Flashcards
Piaget’s theory
Piaget proposes a cognitive developmental theory of moral development in which the moral concepts of the child evolve in an unvarying sequence. From an early stage (the stage of moral realism or heteronomous morality) to a more mature stage (morality of reciprocity or autonomous morality). No one could reach the stage of moral reciprocity without first having passed through the stage of moral realism. He elaborated his theory of moral development by listening to children’s reasoning when he asked them moral questions in little stories (clinical interviews).
Mature morality:
Includes children’s understanding and acceptance of social rules and their concern for equality and reciprocity in human relationships (the basis of justice)
Two ways Piaget investigated moral judgements:
- By shifts with age in children’s attitudes toward rules in common games (marbles)
- By changes in children’s judgements of the seriousness of transgressions
Moral development in preschool child
The child shows little concern for, or awareness of rules. In children’s games the child does not try to play a systematic game with the intention of winning, but the manipulation and multiple using of marbles. By age of 5, the child begins to develop great concern and respect for rules. Rules are seen as coming from external authority (usually the parents), immutable, unchanging through time and never to be questioned. Children evaluate the seriousness of an act in terms of its consequences rather than according to the good or bad intentions of the actor. Behavior is assessed in terms of objective responsibility rather than intentionality.
Moral absolutism:
reflects the inflexibility when children approach social interactions (my mommy says). If children of this age are asked if children in other countries could play marbles with different rules, they will assure the interviewer that they could not.
Immanent justice
Any deviation from the rules is seen as inevitably resulting in punishment by immanent justice. (I fell of the bike because I lied to my mom).
Moral realism/heteronomous morality
The children tend to judge nauthiness in terms of the severity of the consequence rather than in terms of motives. Two factors that contribute to young children’s moral realism are egocentrism (their inability to subordinate their own experiences and perceive situations as others would) and realistic thinking (which leads them to confuse external reality with their own thought processes and subjective experiences). Two factors that contribute to young children’s moral realism are egocentrism (their inability to subordinate their own experiences and perceive situations as others would) and realistic thinking (which leads them to confuse external reality with their own thought processes and subjective experiences).
Morality of reciprocity/Moral relativism/autonomous morality
Begins to emerge in children at about the age of 9-11. Moral judgements are now characterized by the recognition that social rules are arbitrary agreements that can be questioned and changed. Obedience to authority is neither necessary nor always desirable. Violations of rules are not always wrong, nor inevitably punished. The child considers the feelings and viewpoints of others when judging their behavior. When there is to be punishment, aspects such as the intentions of the wrongdoer and the nature of the transgression should be considered. The punishment should be in the form of restitution that will make up for harm done or help teach the wrongdoer to behave better if the situation should arise again. There should be equalitarianism in the form of justice for all.
Kohlberg’s theory
Kohlberg developed a more complete theory of stages in moral development. He based his descriptions on children’s responses to hypothetical moral dilemmas too. He was interested in the reasons children gave for their moral judgements.
Kohlberg’s stages of moral development
- Preconventional moral reasoning
- Conventional moral reasoning
- Post conventional reasoning
Instrumental relativism
What is right is what satisfies your own needs and occasionally the needs of others (e.g. familial expectations)
Preconventional moral reasoning
Throughout the preconventional level (6-9 year), a child’s sense of morality is externally controlled. Children accept and believe the rules of authority figures, such as parents and teachers. A child with pre-conventional morality has not yet adopted or internalized society’s conventions regarding what is right or wrong, but instead focuses largely on external consequences that certain actions may bring.
Conventional moral reasoning
Throughout the conventional level (around 11), a child’s sense of morality is tied to personal and societal relationships. Children continue to accept the rules of authority figures, but this is now due to their belief that this is necessary to ensure positive relationships and societal order. Adherence to rules and conventions is somewhat rigid during these stages, and a rule’s appropriateness or fairness is seldom questioned.
Postconventional moral reasoning
Throughout the postconventional level, a person’s sense of morality is defined in terms of more abstract principles and values. People now believe that some laws are unjust and should be changed or eliminated. This level is marked by a growing realization that individuals are separate entities from society and that individuals may disobey rules inconsistent with their own principles. Post-conventional moralists live by their own ethical principles-principles that typically include such basic human rights as life, liberty, and justice-and view rules as useful but changeable mechanisms, rather than absolute dictates that must be obeyed without question. Because post-conventional individuals elevate their own moral evaluation of a situation over social conventions, their behavior, especially at stage six, can sometimes be confused with that of those at the pre-conventional level. Some theorists have speculated that many people may never reach this level of abstract moral reasoning.
Obedience-and-Punishment Orientation
Preconventional: stage one focuses on the child’s desire to obey rules and avoid being punished. For example, an action is perceived as morally wrong because the perpetrator is punished; the worse the punishment for the act is, the more “bad” the act is perceived to be.
Instrumental Orientation
Preconventional Stage 2 expresses the “what’s in it for me?” position, in which right behavior is defined by whatever the individual believes to be in their best interest. Stage two reasoning shows a limited interest in the needs of others, only to the point where it might further the individual’s own interests. As a result, concern for others is not based on loyalty or intrinsic respect, but rather a “you scratch my back, and I’ll scratch yours” mentality. An example would be when a child is asked by his parents to do a chore. The child asks “what’s in it for me?” and the parents offer the child an incentive by giving him an allowance.
Good boy, nice girl orientation
Conventional: In stage 3, children want the approval of others and act in ways to avoid disapproval. Emphasis is placed on good behavior and people being “nice” to others.
Law and Order orientation
Conventional: In stage 4, the child blindly accepts rules and convention because of their importance in maintaining a functioning society. Rules are seen as being the same for everyone, and obeying rules by doing what one is “supposed” to do is seen as valuable and important. Moral reasoning in stage four is beyond the need for individual approval exhibited in stage three. If one person violates a law, perhaps everyone would-thus there is an obligation and a duty to uphold laws and rules. Most active members of society remain at stage four, where morality is still predominantly dictated by an outside force.
Social-Contract Orientation
Postconventional: In stage 5, the world is viewed as holding different opinions, rights, and values. Such perspectives should be mutually respected as unique to each person or community. Laws are regarded as social contracts rather than rigid edicts. Those that do not promote the general welfare should be changed when necessary to meet the greatest good for the greatest number of people. This is achieved through majority decision and inevitable compromise. Democratic government is theoretically based on stage five reasoning.
Universal-Ethical-Principal Orientation
Preconventional: In stage 6, moral reasoning is based on abstract reasoning using universal ethical principles. Generally, the chosen principles are abstract rather than concrete and focus on ideas such as equality, dignity, or respect. Laws are valid only insofar as they are grounded in justice, and a commitment to justice carries with it an obligation to disobey unjust laws. People choose the ethical principles they want to follow, and if they violate those principles, they feel guilty. In this way, the individual acts because it is morally right to do so (and not because he or she wants to avoid punishment), it is in their best interest, it is expected, it is legal, or it is previously agreed upon. Although Kohlberg insisted that stage six exists, he found it difficult to identify individuals who consistently operated at that level.
Carol Gilligan’s criticism against Kohlberg’s theory
Woman have been unfairly treated by Kohlberg’s tests for moral development, which tend to indicate that women score lower than men. Most women’s judgments seem to be given orientation 3 (good girl/boy) ratings - a stage in which morality is conceived in interpersonal terms and goodness is equated with helping and pleasing other. The very traits that traditionally have defined the “goodness” of women are those that mark them as deficient in moral development. Women are more likely to recall dilemmas that concern personal relationships, while males recall prior dilemmas in their lives that are more impersonal. Women are more likely to focus on a caring orientation while men more often adopts a “right” orientation. Gilligan suggests that the care prospective ought to be considered as an aspect of moral reasoning in both males and females. Kohlberg’s theory penalizes women for their greater sensitivity to what others think. Kohlberg says that the difference is the result of men having greater practice in moral problem solving, while Gilligan states that it is the result of an inherent male bias in the theory itself: the emphasis on what is fair and a lack of attention to other aspects of interpersonal relations. And in addition to male bias, Kohlberg’s scoring system is based only on responses to hypothetical examples.
Carol Gilligan’s theory:
She studied moral development by examining the reasoning of women contemplating an abortion, clearly a serious and difficult moral decision. Her lengthy interviews lead her to conclude there are three distinct levels of female moral development, with specific period of transition between each:
- individual survival
- self-sacrifice and social conformity
- non-violence
Non-violence (Gilligan)
Last stage.
In the second transition, which for many never takes place, women come to recognize their powerlessness as being more a matter of attitude than of necessity. They learn to verify their capacity for independent judgment and legitimacy of their own point of views. Their moral decisions now include their own needs as well as those of others. The criterion is to be nonviolent, to cause as little hurt to self and others as possible. “My boyfriend want to have an abortion, but I will not so I’m
Self-sacrifice and social conformity (Gilligan)
- as a result of the first transition, which often occurs during adolescence the woman moves from selfishness to self-sacrifice. A sense of responsibility and concern for others now dominates her thinking “I want the child, but it would not be a good life for the baby and the father does not want it”. Females lives have traditionally been governed by males, and females feel powerless. Because of this, females at this stage justify their position by exalting the life of sacrifice. Transition, from goodness to truth
Individual survival
1: Reasoning is limited strictly by concern for herself “I just don’t want a baby, it would not be good for me now”. Transition from selfishness to responsibility
Expiatory punishment
the punishment should relate to the severity of the wrong doing and should make the person feel guilty.
Heinz Dilemma
The dilemma which Kohlberg used in interviews with the children. Should the man not steal the drug since it is against the law / steal the drug and go to prison / steal the drug and not go to prison
