Moral development implicitly means something like an increasing tendency with age to do good and refrain from doing evil. The progress of moral development cannot be deduced directly from the occurrence or otherwise of certain morally praiseworthy or reprehensible behavior, but only from the existence of a realization that it is (not) good to do certain things and other things to the detriment. to let.
Moral judgments and other judgments
Moral judgments must be distinguished from judgments based on personal preferences or on arbitrary conventions. Anyone who gives a moral judgment does not pretend to base it on personal preference or on an arbitrary and changeable convention, but on the authority of a moral standard that applies always and everywhere.
The biological basis of the capacity for moral judgment
Behavior in itself is not an indication of the existence of a sense of right and wrong. However, behavior has been demonstrated in some primate species that does indicate the existence of such awareness. However, this does not show that these non-human primates judge in terms of good and evil in exactly the same way as humans. However, it does show that the distinction between our own species and related species is not very clear, even in the area of making moral judgments. Moral judgments are therefore not based on complex reasoning (because these animals can do it too).
According to Haidt’s social-intuitionist approach, we can try to reason why we consider an action good or bad, but here too the justification follows the judgment rather than the other way around.
The idea that moral judgments have not only cognitive, but also intuitive and emotional components is supported by research into the role of empathy in moral functioning and in recent research into processes in the brain that play a role in the formation of moral judgments. .
Martin Hoffman (2000) argues that the basis for moral judgments is empathy. Brain areas involved : cognitive processes in prefrontal and temporal cortex and emotional and motivational processes in the limbic system. The human tendency to judge situations in terms of good and evil has a biological basis.
Moral development and the development of moral affect
Given the origins of the capacity for moral action, it is not surprising that very young children already judge things in terms of good and evil. This development largely consists of an increase in empathic abilities, which itself is based on the development of certain social-cognitive skills.
Hoffman (2000) assumes four stages in children’s awareness of the distinction between themselves and others:
- A missing or unclear differentiation between self and others.
- Self and others are distinguished as different physical entities.
- Self and others are distinguished as individuals with different desires, ideas and feelings.
- Self and others are distinguished as individuals who may respond differently to the same event due to their own personal background and history.
The child is increasingly able to respond empathetically.
Combined with the capacity for empathy, the basic sense of responsibility forms the basis for the capacity to feel guilty. This leads to less norm-violating behavior.
Moral development and moral internalization
According to some, moral development can be seen as the result of an increasing internalization of externally supplied rules and norms.
The development of moral reasoning
In work by Piaget, Kohlberg and Gibbs, the emphasis is not so much on judging a particular situation or behavior as good or bad, but on moral reasoning, that is, on justifying such a judgment. According to Haidt, it is the emotion-based moral judgment that leads to the reasoning that justifies that judgment (rather than the reasoning leading to the judgment).
If this is so, why is it still worth studying the retrospective justification of moral judgments? Reasons:
- Moral justifications play an important role in communicating with others about a given moral judgment.
- Justifying a moral judgment leads to a certain systematization. The justification influences the scope of the moral judgment (seals example: if you believe that seals should not be clubbed to death, and you draft that law, you are most likely including other animals that have the same right, and not just seals.) .
In his book, Piaget distinguishes between two forms of moral thinking, namely heteronomous morality and autonomous morality . Heteronomous morality: for this, the source of moral authority lies outside the individual himself. Doing good is doing what an authority orders or what the law prescribes. Typically for children up to 10 years old. As a child interacts more with other children, and therefore gains more and more experience with the egalitarian and reciprocal child-child relationships that challenge one to take the other’s perspective , the greater the chance that heteronomous moral thinking will make way for:
According to autonomous morality moral judgments about the behavior of evildoers are justified not only by pointing to the severity of the suffering but also by the intention of the evildoer. This requires perspective from others: social perspective.
Example: Heinz’s famous dilemma : His wife is ill, but he does not have enough money to buy the medicine from the pharmacist. Should he steal medicine (perpetrator/potential helper) from the pharmacist (victim) for his wife (victim)? People think about this differently at different ages. According to Kohlberg, there are three main categories that simultaneously represent levels of moral thinking:
1. Pre-conventional: consisting of 2 stages. Similar to Piaget’s heteronomous morality.
- First stage: heteronomous morality. Heinz shouldn’t steal, otherwise he’ll go to prison.
- Second stage: individualistic instrumental morality. Heinz must know what he is doing. If he wants to risk his life to go to jail, he should.
- Convention stage: consisting of 2 stages. Differentiation on Piaget’s autonomous morality.
- Third stage: interpersonal normative morality. Heinz shouldn’t break in otherwise they will think he is a criminal. Or: he has to steal because otherwise people won’t find a good husband for his wife.
- Fourth stage: morality of the social system. Heinz has to steal the medicine because he promised to take care of his wife when they went, by the way. He must also accept the consequences. Or: Don’t steal because this is prohibited by law.
- Post-conventional: consisting of 2 stages. Differentiation on Piaget’s autonomous morality.
- Fifth stage: morality based on human rights and social welfare.
- Sixth stage: morality of general and abstract ethical principles. The woman’s right to life is more important than the pharmacist’s right to property.
According to Gibbs, only stages 1-4 represent a true developmental sequence. Stages 1 and 2 are immature. Stages 3 and 4 are mature forms of moral reasoning.
Morality and gender.
According to Gillian, Kohlberg places too much emphasis on perpetrator-victim relationships and not enough on helper-victim relationships. He further says: thinking in terms of justice is mainly characteristic of men and boys, while thinking in terms of care is characteristic of women and girls. This leads to a systematic underestimation of the level of moral thinking of women and girls. Women and girls are more empathetic than men and boys and are therefore more focused on helping those who need help. In the end it turned out that Gillian was wrong. However, this has led to the realization that in moral situations it is not always about justice, but also about care for those who need help. So in addition to an ethic of justice, there is also an ethic of care.
Morality and culture
According to Kohlberg, his approach to moral development is independent of cultural context. Gibbs distinguished between three implications of Kohlberg’s universality claim, namely:
- The sequence of stages is universal.
- Everywhere, opportunities for social perspective-taking are the driving force behind the development of moral reasoning.
- The values to which the theory relates are universally recognized as central moral values. However, he does not rule out that other values that are not included in Kohlberg’s approach are indeed seen as morally relevant in at least some cultures.
Justice, honesty, harm and pain are central, they are the moral code of personal autonomy. But in other cultures also: community and divine (divinity). However, these are seen in the West as merely conventional rather than moral.
Moral behavior: Relations to judgments, affect, and identity
Moral awareness is only one of the possible causes of morally desirable behavior. According to Rest (1983), there are four types of factors that determine in a potentially morally relevant situation the extent to which an individual’s moral sense influences how he or she behaves. These relate to:
- The way in which the situation is interpreted (interpretation component).
- The moral judgment that someone has about a certain situation (judgment component)
- The extent to which moral judgment is taken into account in the final decision to behave in a certain way. (weighting component)
- The tenacity with which a decision once made is actually implemented. (tenacity component)
Research into the relationship between the two components of Rest’s scheme, the actual moral judgment and morally relevant behavior, has mainly focused on the two processes mentioned in the literature as determinants of moral judgment, namely:
- Moral reasoning in the sense of Kohlberg and Gibs. This seems to be strongly related to morally relevant behavior exhibited.
- Moral affect. Those who quickly feel guilty after committing an offense commit it less often. But the connection is not strong.
The third component of Rest’s model also known as: moral identity, moral person or moral personality. Moral identity refers to the extent to which moral ideas and values become central to the individual’s image of himself. When this is strong, it is important to be a good person.