Morals

An Outline and Evaluation of Moral Development through Piagets Theory and the Social Learning Theory Piaget (1932) developed a major theory based on children’s cognitive methodology when approaching particular moral situations; using the game of marbles and moral stories/dilemmas to evaluate the moral development a child. In his evaluation he categorised children into three stages of moral development i. e. pre-moral (0-5yrs), Moral Realism (5-8/9yrs), Moral Relativism (+9yrs).

Concluding that children under five didn’t consider moral reasoning Piaget concentrated on the two latter stages. Piaget believed these stages are innate, they occur naturally; only through cognitive development will a child begin to move from moral realism to moral relativism. Moral realism is when a child has a heteronomous moral perspective with unilateral respect showing unconditional obedience to adults. They are egocentric and their moral judgement is based on consequences and intentions are not considered, with punishment being expiatory and usually unjustifiably severe.

When a child reaches the stage of moral relativism, they have an autonomous moral viewpoint, they understand mutual respect and that rules are made through social agreement. They are able to recognise that there is a grey area between right and wrong and their moral decisions are based on intentions rather than consequences. Punishment is reciprocal i. e. shows balance between severity of the crime and the punishment received. He noted the importance of a child’s social environment and their interaction without an authority figure e. . in the school playground, here they learn to negotiate conflict and will start to understand resolution/compromise. According to Wright (1971) Piaget’s theory is supposed to show how a child’s practical moral development occurs but the evidence in fact was based on theoretical morality. Piaget linked this through the concept of conscious realization e. g. children can talk using the correct grammar long before they realize that there are rules that govern grammar.

Implying that a child’s practical morality shapes their theoretical morality; an adult’s moral influence won’t affect but will only help and guide a child’s theoretical morality catch up with their practical morality. Armsby (1971) suggests young children understand intention and show awareness to avoid damaging valued items, older children find it easier to differentiate the relation between intention and damage. Piaget’s stories confounds intentions and consequences, when approached separately Constanzo et al. 1973) confirmed that with adult disapproval six year olds judged on consequence regardless of intention but with adult approval they as with older children will consider intentions. Notably, social consequences are related to parental tendencies as children generally will have more experience in dealing with ill-intended acts. To support Piaget’s theory, Kruger (1992, cited in Gross, 1996) tested conflict resolution amongst children with and without an authoritarian figures involvement by giving them two moral dilemmas and questioning them afterwards.

The children who had been paired with an adult had less real insight, lacking moral reasoning because they had given way to the adults understanding. When questioned afterwards, they had a less sophisticated stance-point than the children who had been paired together, showing the advantages attributable to egalitarian active discussion. As Piaget’s investigations were only based on a small amount of subjects, whereas Jose Linaza (1984) interviewed several hundred children in relation to a number of games; participants were from England and Spain, both boys and girls.

He re-affirmed Piaget’s findings but found that depending on the games complexity this determined what age certain stages become more apparent, another notable finding was there was no difference between the English and the Spanish children. Turiel (1998) critic’s Piagets methods regarding the moral dilemma questions used as a child would find it difficult to be morally judgemental because of the drastic difference in consequence. i. e. fifteen cups versus one cup, thus tempting the child to ignore intention.

Rule et el. (1974) shows that young children understand the difference in intention, particularly dependant on whether the act is pro-social or hostile i. e. if an aggressive act is in defence of another or not. Bandura, McDonald. (1963) doubted Piaget’s theory; in particular the concept of stages by explaining moral judgement through social learning theory, generally children imitated the models behaviour even if their reasoning differed.

As social learning theory involves the key factors attention, retention, reproduction and motivation and children are said to be able to imitate others behaviour through observational learning, since moral behaviour can be observed and imitated there will be a definite link between SLT and moral development. Bandura et al(1961, cited in Haralambos & Rice, 2002) Bobo Dolls studies on SLT were criticised due to the artificial conditions i. e. he subjects were not geographically selected at random thus pre conditioning could have influenced results and because of the nature of the Bobo Dolls (they sprung back when struck) the children could then have perceived the aggression the models showed towards the dolls as a game. Therefore, the need to have an understanding for the aggression was lacking and since the children observed no vicarious punishment (verbal or physical) they would have no need to make a judgement, they didn’t have any reason to dissuade them from performing the behaviour.

Interestingly, Langer (1975) replicating Banduras experiment concluded that his techniques confused the children. After viewing the model half of the children’s moral judgements remained the same and when they did change their explanations didn’t. When a child is trying to form identification they will associate with and imitate/model themselves on other people’s behaviour/mannerisms. Though this is not confined necessarily and exclusively to parents as other family members, siblings in particular together with peers will play a significant part in a child’s behaviour.

A child may imitate a complete stranger’s behaviour especially if vicarious reinforcement is shown as the child then has the motivation to imitate this particular behaviour. Children may imitate behaviour without the insight to make a moral judgement. Notably, Hoffman’s research observed that age dependant children are more likely to imitate a role models deviant behaviour rather than the models compliant behaviour, this emphasises a lack of moral development. (1970, cited in Bukatko & Daehler, 1998) Grusec et. l (1978) focused on whether or not a child would imitate a models good behaviour (donating/giving) with or without verbal instruction. What is shown in her results was that through observing, the majority of children, even without verbal instruction imitated the models behaviour. Nelson (1980) found that children as young as the age of three are able to make intentional based decisions regardless of consequence as long as information on intentions is made clear. Observational learning and principles of reinforcement can not adequately explain all aspects of moral development as a child’s cognitive processes are not fully explored.

As explained by Turiel (1983) in this study, children who receive punishment too late for non-compliant behaviour seems to show a leniency towards deviant behaviour, the late timing mentioned only seems to confuse the children, once again showing a lack of understanding/judgement. Insightfully, the above-mentioned studies on moral development confirm clearly that children even from a very young age imitate other people’s behaviour and whether they understand the intentions or consequences of any particular behaviour is questionable especially at a young age.

The concept of conscious realisation is a cognitive process which would only develop depending on the moral influences of a child’s socialization, emotional attachments, level of education and life experience. Bibliography Armsby, R. (1971) A re-examination of the development of moral judgements in children. Child Development, 42, 1242-1248 Bandura, A. & McDonald, F. J. (1963). Influence of social reinforcement and the behavior of models in shaping children’s moral judgments. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(3), 274-281. Bukatko, D. & Daehler, M. W. (1998).

Child Development: A Thematic Approach. New York; Houghton Mifflin. p. 410. Costanzo, P. , Coie, J. , Grumet, J. , & Farnill, D. (1973). A re-examination of the effects of intent and consequence on children’s moral judgements. Child Development, 44(1), 154-161. Gross, R. (1996) Psychology: The Science of Mind and Behaviour. London: Houghton & Stoughton. p. 696. Grusec, J. E. , Kuczynski, L. , Rushton, J. P. , & Simutis, Z. M. (1978). Modelling, direct instruction, and attributions: Effects on altruism. Developmental Psychology, 14, 51–57. Haralambos, M. A. & Rice, D. (ed) (2002).

Psychology in Focus, Ormskirk; Causeway Press. p. 316-317. Langer, J. (1975). Disequilibrium as a source of development. In P. Mussen, J. Langer, & M. Covington (Eds. ), Trends and issues in developmental psychology (pp. 22-37). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Linaza, J. (1984). Piaget’s marbles: the study children’s games and their knowledge of rules. Oxford Review of Education, 10, 271-4. Nelson, S. A. (1980). Factors influencing young children’s use of motives and outcomes as moral criteria. Child Development, 51, 823-829. Piaget, J. (1952), Moral Judgement of a Child, London : Routledge and K.

Paul Rule, B. G. , Nesdale, A. R. , McAra, J. R. (1974) Children’s Reaction to the Information about the Intentions Underlying an Aggressive Act: Child Development, 45(3) pp 794-798 Turiel, E. (1983) The Development of Social Knowledge: Morality and Convention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Turiel, E. (1998) Moral development, in: W. Damon (Ed. ), Handbook of Child Psychology, 5th Edition, Volume 3: N. Eisenberg (Ed. ), Social, Emotional, and Personality Development, pp. 863-932 (New York: Wiley). Wright, D. (1971). The psychology of moral behavior. Middlesex, England: Penguin Books.

Elizabeth, a seven year old child, was forbidden by her mother to play inside the house or else she’ll tie her up side down.  One day, her little friends invited her to play a “chasing” game.   Because she was not to play inside the house, she told her friends to play outside the house.  They got bored with the game and decided to change it into hide and seek.  Elizabeth, a very competitive child, doesn’t want to be caught by anyone.  She decided to hide inside the house keeping in mind to be as careful as possible.

But unfortunately for her, her friend Aspen, who was the seeker, saw her enter the house and followed her.  Elizabeth got nervous when she saw Aspen.   In the instant that Aspen entered the house, Elizabeth quickly ran towards the door but she was caught by Aspen.  They grab each other so that one of them might reach the base first.  But as they grab each other they bump into vase stand.  The vase fell and breaks. Her mother caught them.  Elizabeth told her mother that it’s not her fault and include Aspen as well.

Commonly, children exhibits a pre-conventional level of way of thinking, that is,  they enter the first and second stage of Kohlberg’s six stages of moral development  (Nucci, 2002).  In stage 1, children conceived an action to be right or wrong according to the punishment their parents give them.  In stage 2, the concept developed by a child is like “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours”.

 For Piaget, children are more worried about the results and consequences of what they have done rather than the true reason underlying their action (Nucci, 2002). Applying these theories to Elizabeth’ situation, she would think of horrible situations like her mother’s going to tie her up side down.  Maybe she’ll also think of different scenarios like she’ll not allow her to play ever again.  Another thing, she’ll make sure that Aspen will take her punishment too – this is to include the “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours”. Obviously, the child’s age is appropriate to the stage since Elizabeth is exhibiting both the characteristics that Piaget and Kohlberg described.

Reference

1. Nucci, L. (2002, February 15).  Studies in Moral Development and Education: An Overview.
2. Retrieved September 23, 2007, from http://tigger.uic.edu/~lnucci/MoralEd/overview.html.

Business ethics and morals can be significantly different or may overlap in many other ways. Ethics generally applies to the standards of an organizational or social system whereas morals define personal character of each individual involved in the business. Morals are typically unchanging throughout one’s life whereas ethics may change as society and government make changes. An organization generally communicates its business ethics through a code of conduct to the employees of the business whereas family, friends, mentors, and religious leaders ingrain individual morals. Ethical problems may arise when personal morals and business ethics conflict one another. It is then that an individual must make decisions that may place the business at risk or do what he or she believes is the right thing to do. This could mean saving lives and jeopardizing ones employment.

Ethical and Moral Issues

Ethical and moral issues can have significant or subtle difference and even sometimes appear the same. Morals play large part in forming ethics whether business, personal, or social. Individuals who avoid cheating, lying, stealing, and even murder are good morals that most of us share. These same moral principals are applied to our personal, social, and business ethics. However, differences can be found between ethical and moral issues. While it may be ethical to respect other beliefs and religions, it is not considered to be a moral issue. The medical and scientific communities may deem an act ethical while our individual moral standard considers the act to be immoral, as evidence shown in debates about stem cell research, abortion, and testing on animals.

Personal and Business Ethics

Personal ethics and business ethics differ in that personal relate to one’s own ethics while business ethics are defined for the workplace. Personal ethics are what an individual believes to be true and right while business ethics are determined by an organization and are generally governed by law. Business ethics may also be written to gain public trust and acceptance. Personal and business ethics can be a reflection of each other or even complete opposite. Personal and business ethics may have great conflict with other. One’s personal ethics may believe it is acceptable to date another employee of the business while the business ethics may prohibit this action. Some pharmacists may consider medications such as the birth control pill to be unethical according to their own personal ethics; however the company they work for considers the dispensing of any prescription medication written by a licensed physician to be ethical.

Some may say that individuals place a lower standard on business ethics than they do their own personal ethics. Business ethics have been shown in a negative light for companies such as the Enron and WorldCom. Because of such negative light, businesses are becoming more concerned about their reputation with regards to ethics. “Many of them are establishing high-level ethics committees, drafting codes of ethical conduct, and conducting ethics training programs” (Trevino & Nelson, 2007, p. 8). Employers are also known to hire individuals who possess close personal ethics with the organizations business ethics. This is generally done in the interview process with personality tests. If a potential hire demonstrates personal ethics that do not align with the business ethics, this could pose a high risk for misconduct and potentially place the business at risk.

Ethics, whether personal or business, are the foundation to our relationships with society. “Ethics can determine how we relate to our employers, our employees, our coworkers, our communities, our suppliers, our customers, and one another” (Trevino & Nelson, 2007, p. 19). This is an important part of our lives and each of us has to lie down at night and examine our own actions of the day and determine if we have been ethical toward one another in our personal relationships as well as our business relationships.