Moral judgement Flashcards
Piaget’s Theory of Moral Judgement
> Moral behaviour is driven by changes in cognitive development
Behaving in a right and wrong manner depends on understanding what is right and wrong
Investigated moral development via:
1. Children’s responses to games, and their attitudes to rules in games
2. Children’s reactions to moral transgressions- ask questions about characters in the story
Proposed that moral development progressed through a series of changes (children follow 3 moral stages):
1. Premoral stage
2. Moral realism
3. Moral reciprocity
Premoral Stage
Children up to 5 years old. in this stage little to no understanding of morality. Little respect for or awareness of socially defined rules.- Evident in how children play games
Moral Realism
> happens between ages of 5-10
children progress into the second stage, children see rules that come from authority figures. Rules are seen as unchanging and not to be questioned. Believe rules are real and concrete things, believe they cannot be changed. rules that are what member of society has decided what is right or wrong
See rules as coming from authority (e.g., parents)
Rules are viewed as unchanging/not to be questioned
Moral absolutism prevails (the rules are the same everywhere)
Immanent justice: any deviation from rules requires/deserves punishment; justice is about retribution
Children only evaluate acts based on their consequences, not the actor’s intentions (do not take the actors intention into consideration only look at the outcomes)
Moral Reciprocity
> Happens at ages 10+
Social rules are arbitrary agreements, they can be questioned and changed
Not necessary or desirable to obey authority
Not all transgressions require/deserve punishment
Take into account intentions of transgressor
Punishment should serve a purpose: behavioral enforcement or restitution - take multiple factors into consideration, intention, nature of the situation- higher level of reasoning, more suffocated evaluation of the situations. Think punishment should teach you something and serve a purpose, should correct something. “Punishment should fit the crime”
Equal justice for all
Social rules are governed by equality and reciprocity
Piaget’s Theory of Moral Judgment: Critiques
> Some, but not all cultures, show trends consistent with Piaget’s theory. - mostly apply to western societies and cultures, not applicable universally
Piaget underestimated children’s abilities
Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Judgement
pass through discontinuous stages, do not revert back, not everyone reaches the highest stage
> Based on Piaget’s theory of moral development
> Moral reasoning depends on cognitive development
> Moral reasoning proceeds through stages
> Stages are fixed & universal; not everyone reaches highest stage
> Proposed 6 stages and 3 levels:
1. Preconventional (Stage 1 & 2)
2. Conventional (Stage 3 & 4)
3. Postconventional (Stage 5 & 6)
Preconventional: Stages 1 & 2
Moral reasoning based on rewards and punishment
Stage 1: moral judgement is about self or other avoiding punishment- based on outcome of situation, self centred, concern with avoiding punishment. Not yet based on rules and norms. Desire to avoid punishment (Morality of act defined by physical consequences)
Stage 2: moral judgment is about getting rewards- moral judgement is based on the desire to obtain reward. Not fair to pharmacist if heinz steals the drug. What is right is what is in the best interest of the child, person or involves an equal exchange between people. Start to recognise that others have needs. Reciprocity based on gaining rewards from other people
Reasoning is not yet based on rules or norms (preconventional)
Preconventional: Stages 1 & 2
Conventional: Stages 3 & 4
Based on the motive to conform; upholding laws and rules simply because they are laws and rules
Stage 3: conform to get others’ approval- steal drugs- focus on conform with people to get approval. What’s right and wrong depends on others’ reactions. Use family and friends’ standards of what is good/bad. (based on the desire to conform and get other peoples approval- steal drug his family will think he is a good man. Right and wrong is a function of what other people will think)
Stage 4: conformity to society’s rules, laws and conventions- “Law and order morality” blindly accepting of rules; what is good is what is consistent with rules (conformity to societies rules and laws to maintain social order. Blindly accept rules and understand what is right is consistent with the rules. Focus on upholding the duties of society and citizens., )
Upper limit on many/most people’s reasoning
Conventional: Stages 3 & 4
Postconventional: Stages 5 & 6
Morality is about an internalized ethical code that is independent or others’ approval or disapproval; based on personal moral standards
Stage 5: society’s consensus about human rights (society’s consensus about human rights)- Rules can be modified based on other ways of maximizing welfare. cannot completely blame someone into stealing but cannot have everyone stealing when things get hard. What is the greatest good for the greatest number of people
Stage 6: reasoning based on abstract principles of justice and equality (Highest level of moral reasoning that few people achieve)- should not steal the medicine others may need it too. Understand that rules and laws are obritary but follow them because they understand that rules and laws protect people:
* Morality is about respect for others
* Adhere to abstract principles
* Answer to inner conscience
* Highly differentiated moral systems
Postconventional: Stages 5 & 6
Heinz Dilemma (How stages would respond)
a moral question- Heinz considers stealing a drug he cannot afford to save his dying wife. Cost 400 to make charged 4000, Heinz tried to borrow money but was only made half. Told his wife is dying and asked to buy for cheaper or pay back later. Seller said now. Contemplated on stealing the drug, children were asked what he should do, explanation for decisions matters. Reasons changed as children got older 8- should not steal, must obied by the law. Older children and adults argue he should steal, moral duty to save wife. Steal drug and should not face prison time, is unjust
Stage 1-
Stage 2-
Stage 3-
Stage 4-
Stage 5-
Stage 6-
Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral ages
Longitudinal study- how many responses would fit into these stages- Moral reasoning changed with stage- Plotting the frequency of responses as a function of age. Stage 6 is not really on there. Frequency of 1 and 2 are prevalent around 10 and there is a downwards trend. Increase in frequency of responses for stage 3 and 4. During adolescence there is a peak in stage 3 and stage 4 is more gradual. At age 36 more frequent is stage 4. Only about 10% of participants were represented by stage 5 thinking, also seen in age 36. Most common would be stage 4, stage 6 is almost none existent. only boys responses, studied 58 boys over a 20 year period
Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Judgment: Critiques
- Cultural Variability-
>Greater emphasis on community standards over individual values in some cultures.
>Some cultures make reference to culturally unique aspects of morality (purity, gender).
>collectivist cultures- explain responses and answers by focusing on community than personal standards. Some make culturally unique answers which are not incorporated in the theory - Historical events and environmental variability shape moral responses.-
> Civil war, 9/11, influences world responses. No room for personal experience and how these might influence or responses to moral dilemmas - Administering interviews using MC questions yields more “high level” responses.-
> all verbal responses, not only did they have to comprehend the stories, they also had to articulate their reasoning. MC performance yielded, choosing higher responses, limitation of using mc….. - Use of hypothetical dilemmas; reasoning differs with real-life moral conflicts (also across different types of dilemmas).-
> real life and hypothetical are different. It is not the same thing as when you are living through it - Moral behaviour does not always stem from moral reasoning
Gilligan’s Theory of Moral Development
Build upon and expanded the traditional theories
Gilligan asked whether girls and women would show similar patterns of moral reasoning (Kohlberg only interviewed boys and men)
* Hypothesized that women may value caring over individual rights and justice
* Found gender differences on some of Kohlberg’s classic dilemmas (Heinz)
* Boys: balance between life and property rights - emphasised logic
* Girls: interpersonal focus; impact on Heinz, his wife, their relationship- centred around how the situation affects heinz, his wife and that relationship
These gender differences have been replicated when reasoning about real world issues (but not hypothetical dilemmas)
* Different brain networks responsible for moral reasoning from perspective of justice or caring; cross -cultural differences on importance of interpersonal considerations
* Established caring as an important domain of morality- re-framing her argument that caring is an important domain of morality. Emphasised the need to study gender
Turiel’s Social Domain Theory
Influential for how we think moral development today- children represent multiple domains of social knowledge
* Children possess multiple domains of social knowledge
* Morality:
* Fairness and harm; how individuals ought to behave toward one another
* Social norms and conventions:
* Regularities that organize different social interactions in different contexts
* Personal choices:
* Individual references & privacy- actions in which individual preferences are the main
* From at least age 3, children can distinguish between these domains and treat transgressions from each domain differently- knowing that one child should not steal a toy from another should fall into the moral domain. Parents play a huge role about teaching children. Children evaluate moral violations as worse that transgression because it shows harm and violates concept of fairness….
Defining the moral domain: content and characteristics- Turiel’s Social Domain Theory
how children respond to transgression- 5yo boy was told about a school where it was okay for children to hit one another- probably respond no it is not okay… Violation in the moral domain- justify condemning these transgression. Little boy emphasise not okay to hurt other people even though the rules of the school is okay. School allows to wear PJs to school, likely response would be okay, if that is the boss wants… Transgression in the social domain. Hitting is wrong, no matter where not mater was the school says. These rules are obligatory, cannot change them or argue against them, does not matter that school said okay, hitting is a moral transgression and is wrong. PJs- social transgression it is context specific, you can change the rule and fight against it. If the school allows you do not have to, if principal says its okay then its okay, these transgressions are seen as less severe
* Defining the moral domain: content and characteristics
* Content:
* harm and fairness
* Characteristics:
* Moral rules generalize across contexts
* Are obligatory
* Are inalterable
* Are rule or authority independent
* Vs: social conventions:
* Context specific
* Changeable
* Appeals to authority
* Less serious than moral transgressions
Are moral concepts distinct
- By 3 children see moral transgressions as worse, universal and not ok even if teacher or peers say it’s ok
- Children also distinguish these two domains from personal/prudential issue
A transgression within the moral domain- during class sam turns around and hits a kid, social sam answers a question without raising a hand- able to distinguish between the two domain-
no harm is being inflicted on another individual it is just harm to yourself
Learning social distinctions Parents
> Parents differ in their responses to moral, social conventional and personal/prudential violations committed by toddlers
Parents explicitly teach their kids lessons about what is right and wrong. Parents differ in their responses for… committed by toddlers, tone of voice and the anger they show - greater for moral transgression- different levels of transgressions
Tone of voice/anger: Greater consequences/more anger for moral transgressions
Justifications:
Greater emphasis on other person’s rights and welfare for moral transgressions
More focus on disorder for social-conventions
Learning social distinctions Peers
Peers provided an opportunity for moral learning both through interactions (disputes over possessions, social exclusion, taunting etc) and discussions
Peers- provide opportunity for moral learning through interactions- that’s main, social exclusion, taunting, discussions of one another
The Roots of Moral Judgements in Infancy- research questions/ studies
Can infants detect moral transgression
* Are infants sensitive to moral norms?
* Do they detect transgressions to moral norms?
* Do they evaluate others based on whether they adhere to or violate moral
norms?
* Helping Behavior- Box in front of me, my favourite toy is stuck, struggling, my friend helps me open the lid and get the toy- show babies and they are able to understand that the behaviour is prosocial and positive
* (Distributive) Fairness- Distribution of cookies, stickers, have resources and give 3 and 3 or give 5 to one and 1 to another (fair and unfair distribution)
The Roots of Moral Judgements in Infancy- Kuhlmeier et al. (2003)
2 experiments- showed a computer animated movie with 2 objects. One was engaging in helping behaviour the other was engaging in hindering behaviour towards 3rd object. Triangle helped ball and pushed it up, square saw the ball struggle and pushed the ball back down, hindering the ball from it’s goals. Infants were then shown 2 new text movies where all 3 objects were present but in a new context. OG goal was to climb, new goal did not apply (no hill), the ball approached the helper and settled. another movie the ball sat and settled near hinder. Measured how long babies looked at the event 12mo preferred the movie where the ball approached the helper. Babies looked longer when ball approached the helper- Suggest they differentiate the two, and it makes sense the ball approached helper. - babies wanted to see the sequence completed they thought the ball approaching the helper was completing the sequence
What infants understand about good vs bad people. Run puppet shows in the lab, one character plays the role of a good guy the other bad. Ball tries to go up the hill, triangle helps it. Another trial separated by curtain there is square character that pushed down the hill. After they get bored they are asked to pick between the 2 characters. They pick the helpful guy over unhelpful (upwards of 80%). Other- plays with ball 2 characters one runs and give ball to the charter who drops, other character grabs the ball and runs off the stage, asked infant to pick between puppets again. Picked nice guy. Coding looking time through screen
