CH 11: Morality: knowing Right and Doing Good
Moral Judgment
Piagets cognitive theory of Moral judgment: studied how kids attitudes towards rules in games
changed as the kids got older and by examining the way children’s judgments of seriousness of
transgressions changed with age
Stages of moral reasoning
o Premoral stage: kids show little concern for rules
o Moral realism: kids show great respect for rules and apply them quite inflexibly @5 years
old
o Moral absolutism: rigid application of rules to all individuals regardless of their culture or
circumstance they ascribe to the notion of Immanent justice= the notion that any
deviation from rules will inevitably result in punishment or retribution they evaluate the
seriousness of an immoral act solely in terms of its consequences, they don’t consider the
perpetrators intentions
o Mutual reciprocity: the third stage in which kids recognize that rules may be questioned
and altered, consider the feelings and views of others and believe in equal justice for all
@11 years old they realize obedience to authority isn’t always right and desirable and
that violations to rules aren’t always wrong punishment should make up to the harm
done
Findings in other cultures with respect to Piagets model have been less consistent
Piaget also underestimates kids capacities and abilities
Researchers have found that judgments about rightness and wrongness depend on both whether
the consequences of actions are positive or negative and whether the consequences are intended
or accidental
Kohlberg’s theory of moral judgment: believed that kids cognitive capabilities determine their
level of moral reasoning and that moral development builds on concepts raised in the preceding
stage
Levels and stages of Moral Judgement: studied moral dev by presenting a series of moral
dilemma stories in which ppl had to choose either to obey rules and authority or to respond to
the needs and welfare of others
3 broad levels of moral judgement, each subdivided into 2 stages
1) Preconventional morality: Justification of behavior is based on the desire to avoid punishment
and gain rewards
o Stage 1: Obedience and punishment orientation: to avoid punishment, kids defer to
prestigious and powerful ppl, usually parents and the morality of the act is defined by its
physical consequence
o Stage 2: Naïve Hedonistic and instrumental orientation: children conform to gain rewards
and they understand reciprocity but its manipulative not true generosity and
compassion
2) Conventional Level: moral judgement is based on the motive to conform, either to get
approval from others or to follow society’s rules and conventions
o Stage 3: Good boy/girl morality: good behavior is designed to maintain approval and good
relations with others they are concerned with other peoples approval and disapproval
and they conform to the stadnards of other people and they accept others social regulations
and judge nature of behavior in terms of persons intent to violate the rules
o Stage 4: Authority and Morality that maintain social order: people blindly accept social
conventions they conform to the social order most ppl don’t pas this conventional leve
of morality
3) Postconventional Morality: Self Accepted Moral Principles o Stage 5) Morality of contract, individual rights and democratically accepted law: peoples
moral beliefs have a flexibility they lacked in earlier stages
o Stage 6) Morality of Individual Principles and conscience: people conform to both social
standards and internalized ideals intent is to avoid self condemnation rather than others
criticism people base their decisions on principles like justice, compassion and equality
Sequences of the stages are fixed younger kids more level 1 and older kids more level 2 most
ppl stop here
Stage 5 in young adulthood
Moral heroes: ppl who go beyond the call of duty and challenge us to do the right thing even at a
cost 3 of these heroes served as models for Kohlbergs highest stages of moral dev= Lincoln,
Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr
Limitations of Kohlbergs Theory: cultural differences have been found in the stagesPapa new
Guinea focus on collectivsm, India focus on caste and religion and remaining pure and Kohlbergs
emphasizes individual rights and obligations – underestimates moral dev in some other cultures
and excluded some culturally unique domains of morality
History shapes peoples view of morality ppl who grow up in diff places have diff
understandings of oral issues
Morality= social construction that evolves from experiences, institutions and deliberations of a
community that is bound both by culture and historical era
Theory is also limited because its hypothetical moral dilemmas differ from real life dilemmas
moral decision makrs involved in moral conflict which evokes strong emotions
People tend to make stage 3 or 4 moral judgements in response to impersonal philosophical
dilemmas but lower stage judgements in response to more personal and life dilemmas
New aspects of moral development: Carol Gilligan expanded the moral domain to address gender
issues and the dimension of caring females might take a more caring approach to oral
dilemmas than males, who tent to emphasize individual rights and principles of justice
Boys responses emphasize logic and balance while girls focus on interpersonal stuff
Second revision of kohlbergs theory was the recognition that peoples moral reasoning may vary
in diff situations Kohlberg said that person applies the same level of moral reasoning to all
moral issues= but ppl say that differentcontexts pull for different forms of moral judgement
with development, ppl expand their range of moral reasoning and they way the process moral
information depends on both their mental strcutures and the types of moral dilemmas they
confront
third revision= expansion to include the area of civil rights and liberties as kids mature, their
appreciation of the freedoms we take for granted increases
Kids also become better able to weigh conflicting issues such as restrictions on freedom of
speech in diff gov systems
Green box: justice vs interpersonal obligations in India and the US
o
More than 80% of Hindu children and adults in India endorse interpersonal considerations in
judging moral dilemmas, as opposed to 1/3 in US
o Indians were more than twice as likely as Americans to choose interpersonal
responses and they tended to interpersonal responses as moral imperatives
o Indians view helping others in moral terms no matter how minor the issue=
feminine perspective
Turiels Social Domain Theory:morality is one of the several strands or domains of kids social
knowledge, which also includes knowledge about social norms and conventions and concerns
about privacy and personal choices social conventional domain= area of social judgment focused on social expectations, norms and
regularities that help facilitate smooth and efficient functioning in society
children of all ages consistently view moral violations as worse than violations of social
conventions because moral violations result in harm to another person and violate norms of
justice and fairness and as kids mature, they expand their notions of what harm is
in early childhood it is concrete and physical, in middle childhood harm results from unfairness
defined in terms of inequality between persons, in middle childhood, harm results from
unfairness defined in terms of inequality between persons, in preAD it results from failure to
consider individual differences in needs and status and in AD It becomes more comprehensive an
dis applied more consistently across diff moral issues
Psychological domain: an area of social judgment focused on beliefs and knowledge of self and
others= domain of social knowledge that is separate from the moral and social conventional
domains
Has different types of issues involved Personal issues= only affect the self, prudential issues
have immediate physical consequences for self and psychological issues involve beliefs and
knowledge of self and others and choices about reviling aspects of the self ot others
In these areas, unlike the moral domain, individual choices are accepted
Prudential transgressions are not as bad as moral ones because they harm only the self, not
others
Children also understand that diff ppl have diff psychological beliefs kids realize that the
beliefs of these people are diff but don’t think that they are wrong= they are tolerant of ppls diff
religious beliefs too
Children are also open minded about personal issues such as friendship prefrences, hairstyle
choices and clothing decisions these personal choices are an important part of defining
themselves as different from others it is not surprising that as kids move into AD, they appeal
to personal choice when they have conflict with parents even in collectivist cultures, kids
distinguish btwn personal choices and moral rules more as they mature
Moral considerations take priority over social conventional and personal ones
Conflict between rules in diff domains may led to ambiguities and uncertainties that cause people
to subordinate morality to other concerns
Elementary kids use moral, social conventional and personal reasons to explain why exclusion is
either right or wrong kids more likely to view exclusion as acceptable if it was a conventional
reason or based on their low level of expertise in an acitivty, race , gender, relationship with
other kids, etc
When faced with complex issues, kids apply a range of reasons drawn from different domains
and make decisions based on their age and expeirnece young= make judgements about single
domain issues more easily and consistently then judgements about complex issues
How children learn the rules and distinguish between social domains
According to social domain theory, kids construct different forms of social knowledge based on
diff types of experiences with other people
Parents and teachers roles in moral and social conventional reasoning:
Kids begin to understand right and wrong as early as 16 months of age and rapid increases in
understanding between 2-3 years old
3 years old: kids can justify actions
older= moral judgement most effectively advanced if parents initiate discussions about other
ppls feelings and use disciplinary techniques that involve reasoning and explanation and
promote democratic family discussions parenting strategies promote kids moral dev by stimulating them to think about their actions and
the implications of their actions for the welfare of others and parental reasoning is most effective
when it is clearly linked with the childs violation of a moral rule and when it highlights the
consequences of the act for other persons moral rights
kis also learn during their fam interactions that breaking moral rules and social conventional
rules lead to very diff consequences
moms tend to allow kids more choice and freedom regarding personal and social conventional
issues than moral ones
domain appropriate reasoning is most affective
parents and teachers effectiveness also depends on how well the message fits the kids
developmental level using verbal strategies, brief explanations, match cognitive capacity, etc
In AD, they still accept some parental regulation of social conventional and prudential matters,
but are less likely to accept it when their parents try to regulate personal matters= reason for
most conflict
AA kids reported when parents exerted some control of personal issues= AD had lower self
esteem and more depression when parental control extended to mid or late AD
Authoritative parents are more likely to establish clear and legitimate boundries between moral,
conventional and personal issues for their adolescents THEY treat their conventional
transgressions as if they were moral transgressions and they treat personal issues as if they were
socio conventional issues
Permissive parents treat all issues as personal
Siblings and peers also have an influence in helping kids learn moral and social conventional
rules i.e. via disputes, exclusion, teasing, taunting, hurting each other= opportunities for learning
these rules
Role of culture: children all over the world distinguish among three domains: moral, social
conventional and psychological
content of social conventions varies dramatically across culture= meant to maintain social order
More
Less
