Download Moral Development PowerPoint

Moral Development
“What is moral is what you feel good after and what is immoral
is what you feel bad after.” – Ernest Hemingway
Think on your own…
What does it mean to have
morals?
What is moral development?
How do you know if you have morals?
Moral development involves
changes in thoughts, feelings and
behaviors regarding standards of
right and wrong
This involves an interpersonal and
intrapersonal dimension
Morality
Moral development involves 4
questions:
1.
How do individuals reason or think about moral
decisions?
2.
How do individuals actually behave in moral
circumstances?
3.
How do individuals feel about moral matters?
4.
What characterizes an individuals moral
personality?
Piaget concluded that children go
through two stages of how they
think about morality
Younger children (4-7) display heteronomous
morality
Older children (10 and older) display
autonomous morality
Piaget’s Theory of Moral Development
Heteronymous
morality
Justice and rules are conceived of as
unchangeable properties of the world,
removed from the control of people (4-7
years)
Autonomous
morality
Becomes aware that rules and laws are
created by people; in judging an action,
one should consider actor’s intentions as
well as consequences (10 years and older)
Immanent
justice
If a rule is broken, punishment will be
meted out immediately
Piaget’s Theory of Moral Judgment
Heteronomous thinking is typical of children younger than 7or 8-years-old
‐
These children regard rules and duties to others as
unchangeable “givens”
‐
‐
Justice is whatever authorities say is right
Authorities’ punishments are always justified
Whether an action is good or bad is determined by
the consequence of the action, not the motives or
intentions behind it
‐
‐
Acts that are not consistent with the rules are “bad”
Acts that are consistent with the rules are “good”
Piaget’s Theory of Moral Judgment
Autonomous morality (Moral relativism) is typical of
children 12-years-old and older
‐
Children understand that rules are products of social
interaction and agreement and can be changed if the
majority of the group agrees to do so
‐
Punishments should fit the crime and punishments
delivered by adults is not necessarily fair
‐
They consider the motives and intentions when evaluating
whether an action is good or bad
On your own activity…
Consider the following story, who is right or
wrong?
WHY?
If you are 6: Which girl do you think was more bad,
Olivia or Melissa?
If you are 10: Which girl do you think was more bad,
Olivia or Melissa?
One day, a girl named Olivia was playing with her mommy. Olivia decided
that it would be fun to have a tea party with her mommy and her dolls. So,
Olivia went into the kitchen and got a box of crackers and six tea cups.
Olivia carefully arranged the tea cups on a tray, but while she reached for
the box of crackers, the tray accidentally slipped out of her hands and the
six cups smashed into pieces on the floor.
Another girl, one named Melissa, was playing with her daddy. Melissa
wanted to play marching band in the kitchen by clanging pot lids together.
When her daddy said the he didn’t want to play marching band because it
was too loud, Melissa became very upset. She was so angry that she
grabbed a cup off the counter and threw it onto the floor, smashing it into
pieces.
According to Piaget, young children
who are in a stage of moral realism,
judge right and wrong by the
consequences of one’s actions.
Therefore, young children should say
that Olivia is more bad because she
broke more cups.
These objective judgments give way to
subjective judgments when children
(around age 8) enter the stage of moral
relativism. In this advanced stage,
children consider motives when
judging one’s actions
Moral Reasoning – Kohlberg’s Theory
Moral development progresses through a
series of stages that are discontinuous and
hierarchical
‐
Each new stage reflects a qualitatively
different, more adequate way of thinking than
the one before it
Older and more advanced thinkers
SHOULD, on average, be more
advanced in their moral
development
Higher-level moral reasoning
Like Piaget, age-related advances in cognitive skills
(especially perspective taking) are believed to
underlie the development of higher-level moral
judgments.
‐
People who have higher-level cognitive skills are better
educated and exhibit higher-level moral judgment.
Children who exhibit higher-levels of perspective
taking than their peers score higher in their moral
judgment.
On your own activity…
Read the following moral dilemma and
reflect on why this was right or wrong.
Also what reasoning can use apply to this
story? Would you always have thought
the way you do right now? What has
changed?
Heinz, had a wife who was dying of cancer. A
drug that might save her had been discovered
by a local pharmacist, but he was charging
$2000, ten times what the drug cost to make.
It was far more money than Heinz had. Heinz
went to everyone he knew to borrow the
money but he could only get together about
half of what the drug cost. He told the
druggist his wife was dying, and asked him to
sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the
druggist said, “No, I discovered the drug and
I’m going to make money from it.” So Heinz
got desperate and broke into the man’s store
to steal the drug for his wife.
Was this moral?
Which response is more advanced in terms of
moral reasoning?
‐
He shouldn’t steal the drug because he’ll
probably get caught and put in jail.
‐
He should steal the drug because he wants
his wife to feel better and to live.
Were you right?
Which response is more advanced in terms of
moral reasoning?
‐
He shouldn’t steal the drug because he’ll
probably get caught and put in jail.
‐
He should steal the drug because he wants
his wife to feel better and to live.
How is stealing moral?
The second would be a display of higher levels of moral
reasoning.
In the early stages, moral reasoning is based on
external forces, such as the promise of reward or
the threat of punishment.
The most advanced stages, moral reasoning is based
on a personal, internal moral code and is unaffected
by others’ views or society’s expectations.
Three Levels of Moral Judgment
Preconventional
‐
‐
Self-centered
Focuses on getting rewards and avoiding punishments
Conventional
‐
‐
Centered on social relationships
Focuses on compliance with social duties and laws
Postconventional (Principled)
‐
‐
Centered on ideals
Focuses on moral principles
Stages in Kohlberg’s Theory
Preconventional Level
Stage 1: Punishment and Obedience Orientation
Stage 2: Instrumental and Exchange Orientation (Naïve Hedonism)
Conventional Level
Stage 3: Mutual Interpersonal Expectations,
Relationships, and Interpersonal Conformity (Good Boy or Girl)
Stage 4: Social System and Conscience Orientation (Maintaining
Morality)
Postconventional Level
Stage 5: Social Contract or Individual Right Orientation
Stage 1
Punishment and Obedience Orientation
Pro-stealing: If you let your wife die, you will get
in trouble. You’ll be blamed for not spending the
money to help her and there’ll be an
investigation of you and the druggist for your
wife’s death
Anti-stealing: You shouldn’t steal the drug
because you’ll be caught and sent to jail if you do.
If you do get away, you’d be scared that the
police would catch up with you any minute.
During stage 1 people believe that
adults know what is right and
wrong.
Consequently, a person should do what adults say is right to
avoid being punished. Child does not consider the interests of
others or recognize that they differ from his or her own
interests. People in this stage exhibit blind obedience to
authority.
Stage 2
Naïve Hedonism
Prostealing: The druggist can do what he wants
and Heinz can do what he wants to do… But if
Heinz decides to risk jail to save his wife, it’s his
life he’s risking; he can do what he wants with it.
And the same goes for the druggist; it’s up to him
to decide what he wants to do.
Antistealing: [Heinz] is running more risk than
it’s worth to save a wife who is near death.
In Stage 2 people look out for their
own needs. They often are nice to
others because they expect the favor
to be returned in the future. So it is
a tit-for-tat exchange of benefits.
“You scratch my back, I’ll scratch
yours”
Stage 3
“Good Boy” or “Good Girl” Orientation
Prostealing: No one will think you’re bad if you
steal the drug, but your family will think you’re
an inhuman husband if you don’t. If you let your
wife die, you’ll never be able to look anyone in
the face again.
Antistealing: It isn’t just the druggist who will
think you’re a criminal, everyone else will too.
After you steal it, you’ll feel bad thinking how
you’ve brought dishonor on your family and
yourself.
Stage 3: Adolescents and adults believe they
should act according to others’ expectations.
The aim is to win the approval of others by
behaving like “good boys” and “good girls.”
Being good is important in itself and means
having good motives, showing concern about
others, and maintaining good relationships
with others.
People are judged by their intentions…meaning
well is valued and being nice is important.
Stage 4
Social-Order Maintaining Morality
Prostealing: He should steal it. Heinz has a duty to
protect his wife’s life; it’s a vow he took in marriage.
But it’s wrong to steal, so he would have to take the
drug with the idea of paying the druggist for it and
accepting the penalty for breaking the law later.
Antistealing: It’s a natural thing for Heinz to want
to save his wife, but… Even if his wife is dying, it’s
still his duty as a citizen to obey the law. No one else
is allowed to steal, why should he be? If everyone
starts breaking the law in a jam, there’d be no
civilization, just crime and violence.
Stage 4: Adolescents and adults believe that
social roles, expectations, and laws exist to
maintain order within society and to promote the
good of all people. The individual is motivated to
keep the social system going and to avoid a
breakdown in its functioning.
What is right is what conforms to the rules of
legal authority –the reason for conforming is not
fear of punishment but a belief that rules and
laws maintaining a social order that is worth
preserving.
Stage 5
Social-Contract Orientation
Prostealing: Although there is a law against
stealing, the law wasn’t meant to violate a
person’s right to life. Taking the drug does
violate the law, but Heinz is justified in
stealing in this instance. If Heinz is
prosecuted for stealing, the law needs to be
reinterpreted to take into account situations
in which it goes against people’s natural
right to keep on living.
Stage 5: Adults agree that members of cultural
groups adhere to a “social contract” because a
common set of expectations and laws benefit all
group members. If these expectations and laws
no longer promote the welfare of individuals,
they become invalid
The greatest good for the greatest number… Some
values and rights are universal and must be upheld
regardless of the majority such as life and liberty.
Stage 6
Morality of Individual Principles of Conscience
Pro-stealing: If Heinz does not do everything he can
do to save his wife, then he is putting some value
higher than the value of life. It doesn’t make sense to
put respect for property above respect for life itself.
[People] could live together without private property
at all. Respect for human life and personality is
absolute and accordingly [people] have a mutual duty
to save one another from dying.
Stage 6: Abstract principles like justice (equality
of human rights, respect for the dignity of each
human being), compassion, and equality form the
basis of a personal moral code that may
sometimes conflict with society’s expectations
and laws. When laws violate principles, the
individual should act on principles not the law.
Right and wrong are determined on the basis of self-chosen
ethical principles. Principles are not concrete rules – they are
abstract moral guidelines of universal justice and respect for
the rights of all human beings. These principles transcend any
law or social contract that is in conflict with them.
Do you understand Kohlberg’s
stages of moral development?
Test your knowledge with the following
activity
Shaking her head and frowning
disapprovingly at the teenager who
was slipping a candy bar from the
shelf into the pocket of his jacket, a
shopper lectured, “You know as well
as I do that shoplifting is against the
law. What if everyone just did what
they wanted?”
What level of moral reasoning is demonstrated
by the shopper?
The shopper is in Stage 4 Fulfilling duties and upholding the
law to maintain social order.
They are motivated to keep the social system
going and to avoid a breakdown in its
functioning.
Amy’s mother has insisted that Amy
not eat snacks between meals. Now, if
Amy should eat this Twinkie before
dinner, she should be unhappy when
thinking about how she would be
disappointing her mother.
What level of moral reasoning does
this demonstrate?
Amy is in stage 3…she has to be a
“good girl.” Her good behavior is
doing what is expected by people
who are close to the person or what
people generally expect of someone
in a given role.
Well, Amy ate the Twinkie. When
talking with a friend about it the
next day, Amy’s friend told her
that she (Amy) was bad because
her mother caught her eating
snacks between meals and
punished her for it.
Amy’s friend is using what level of moral
reasoning?
Amy’s friend is in Stage 1…she is
being obedient. The conscience is
made up of fear of punishment and
the moral action is motivated by the
avoidance of punishment.
The child does not consider the interests of
others or see how someone else’s interests are
different from their own.
You are distressed when your boss asks
you to charge a late fee to customers who
miss the deadline. You believe that a late
fee is clearly unjustified; late orders cause
no real difficulty and cost the company no
more to process than early orders. While
you recognize the right of the company to
make a profit, you insist that a late fee is
not fair to the customer.
What level of moral reasoning are you demonstrating?
You are in Stage 5 - being right
involves upholding rules that are in
the best interest of the group.
Rules should be impartial, and
agreed upon by the group. If the
rule no longer promotes the welfare
of individuals, then the rules
become invalid.
Conversation overheard in a
cafeteria line: “Why should I want
to report the guy for failing to
submit all the money we collected
for the charity fund? Sure he kept
some of it, but he shared it with
me.”
What level of moral reasoning does this
demonstrate?
This person is in Stage 2 - what is
right is based on the “tit-for-tat”
principle. It involves an equal
exchange between people. People
look out for their own needs.
They are nice to others because they expect
the favor to be returned.
People with higher-level moral reasoning
‐
‐
‐
Are more likely to assist others
Are less likely to engage in delinquent activities
Are more likely to behave in a moral manner
Individuals at the preconventional and
conventional levels would act morally when
external forces demand, but otherwise they might
not
Individuals at the postconventional level would
act morally even when external forces may not
favor it
Criticisms of Kohlberg’s Theory
It is culturally biased
‐
Does not apply to cultures outside a
constitutional democracy
‐
Does not incorporate the concerns and experiences
of non-Western people
It is considered sexist
‐
Gilligan believes that he places women at a
lower level of moral reasoning (stage 3,
approval) than he does men (stage 4, law and
order)
Gilligan’s Ethic of Caring
Proposed a developmental progression in which
individuals gain greater understanding of caring
and responsibility
‐
First stage
‐
‐
Second stage
‐
‐
Children are preoccupied with their own needs
People care for others, particularly those who are less able to
care for themselves (like infants and aged)
Third stage
‐
People care in all human relationships (with others and
oneself)
Think about this Moral Dilemma
Two young men, brothers got into serious trouble. They
were secretly leaving town in a hurry and needed money.
Karl, the older one, broke into a store and stole a
thousand dollars. Bob, the younger one, went to a retired
old man who was known to help people in town. He told
the man that he was very sick and that he needed a
thousand dollars to pay for an operation. Bob asked the
old man to lend him the money and promised that he
would pay him back when he recovered. Really Bob
wasn't sick at all, and he had no intention of paying the
man back. Although the old man didn't know Bob very
well, he lent him the money. So Bob and Karl skipped
town, each with a thousand dollars.
Think on your own…which is worse, stealing like Karl or
cheating like Bob? Why?
When Does Aggression Emerge?
Social Understanding
Children in this age begin to develop social
understanding or social cognition, which is their
understanding of the social world.
This is a person’s awareness and
understanding of human personality,
emotions, intentions and actions.
They start to realize that people are motivated
by thoughts and emotions that are different
than their own.
Empathy
A person’s understanding of the emotions of
another, including the ability to figure out what
would make that person feel better.
The child must be able to identify the emotions of
others (to at least some degree) and understand that
another person is feeling an emotion or is in some
kind of need.
‐
This indicates a level of understanding of the self,
usually not evident until age 4.
At a city playground, 4-year-old Ezra
sees his playmate Ned trip, fall, and
begin to cry. Ezra goes to Ned, telling
him not to feel bad, and offers to push
him on a swing.
In order for Ezra to understand that Ned
needed comforting, it was necessary for Ezra
to feel empathy with Ned’s unhappiness.
-To realize that he was hurt and warranted
sympathy.
What would you do in your life if
money was no object?
How Empathic Are You?
Answer on a scale of 0 to 4
0: Does not describe me very well --- 4: Describes me very well
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Before criticizing somebody, I try
to imagine how I would feel if I
were in his or her place.
If I’m sure I’m right about
something, I don’t waste much
time listening to other people’s
arguments.
I sometimes try to understand my
friends better by imagining how
things look from their perspective.
I believe that there are two sides to
every question and try to look at
them both.
I sometimes find it difficult to see
things from the “other guy’s”
point of view.
I try to look at everybody’s side of
a disagreement before I make a
decision.
When I’m upset at someone, I
usually try to “put myself in his
shoes” for a while.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
When I see someone being taken
advantage of, I feel kind of
protective toward him.
When I see someone being treated
unfairly, I sometimes don’t feel
much pity for him.
I often have tender, concerned
feelings for people less fortunate
than me.
I would describe myself as a pretty
softhearted person.
Sometimes I don’t feel very sorry
for other people when they have
problems.
Other people’s misfortunes do not
usually disturb me a great deal.
I am often quite touched by things
that I see happen.