MORAL REASONING IN ADOLESCENTS

MORAL REASONING IN ADOLESCENTS:

Some analytical considerations

The issue of rightness and wrongness is a complex phenomenon.

Whether a given action is acceptable or unacceptable may depend on many factors including the specific circumstances involved, legal consideration and own personal code of ethics. Moral development is the process by which individuals acquire a sense of right and wrong, to use in evaluating their own actions and the actions of others [Turiel, 1998]. Moral development begins early and continues throughout the life span. Theories of moral development attempt to find answers to moral issues and how children reason or respond to moral dilemmas and how their moral growth is stimulated.

PIAGET’S THEORY

One of the earliest theories of moral development was put forward by Jean Piaget. Piaget theorized that the way humans think out moral issues depends on their level of cognitive development. In essence there is a direct relationship between cognitive development and moral development. According to Piaget young children are egocentric. That is to say they have difficulty taking others’ perspective into consideration. This tendency is typical of children below the age of seven or in Piaget’s pre-operational stage of cognitive development. Children at this age generally believe that rules are inflexible mandates provided by some higher authorities, are arbitrary and cannot be changed. Breaking a rule will automatically lead to punishment.

Young children tend to judge the gravity or wrongness of an action depending on how much harm has been made regardless of the motive or intention behind an action. For instance a child who intentionally breaks 1 cup while trying to steal sugar is considered to have committed a lesser offence than another who breaks 15 cups accidentally while opening the cupboard door. Piaget called this kind of morality heteronomous morality or morality that is subject to rules imposed by others where a child shows blind obedience to authority. The child perceives justice as resting in the person of authority; this idea is referred to as ‘ethics of authority’. The period is also referred to as moral realism or the morality of constraint, characterized by the view that rules are absolute.

After age eight children are able to understand that rules are not absolute but are rather formed through social consensus and are thus subject to change ----are tentative. In the case of infraction or violation of a rule older children are now capable of considering whether the individual acted intentionally---they consider the motive behind the action. Piaget referred to this stage as morality of co-operation—the level at which children understand that people both make up rules and can change the rules, which are now seen as a product of people’s agreements. This stage reflects the change to a social orientation, an ‘ethics of mutual respect’. Moral judgments shift from an objective to a subjective orientation: the primary concern is no longer simply the objective amount of damage caused by the immoral act, but the intention or motivation now becomes more important. Children now appreciate the reciprocity of relationships.

For Piaget, the highest stage of moral development, characteristic of adolescence, is moral autonomy. Dependent on the attainment of formal or abstract reasoning ability, moral autonomy commonly begins at puberty. In a game situation, like monopoly, chess, dominos- the adolescent reveals interest not only in the rules by which the game is played but also in possible new rules to make the game more interesting or more challenging.

KOHLBERG’S THEORY OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT

Kohlberg developed his theory of moral development in the 1950s.

Like Piaget, he proposed three levels of moral development. The first level, which he called Pre conventional, is where moral reasoning is based solely on a person’s own needs and perceptions. The second level, Conventional is where the expectations of society and law are taken into account. The last level, Post Conventional is where judgments are based on abstract, more personal principles that are not necessarily defined by society rules. Each of these levels is then divided into two stages.

Kohlberg used moral dilemmas which required difficult ethical choices to assess the levels of reasoning in children at different ages. He was not especially interested in the specific choices children or adults made but their underlying moral reasoning in those choices.

Level 1----- Pre conventional morality

Children think in terms of external authority. Rules are absolute; acts are wrong because they are punished or right because they are rewarded.

Stage 1

The punishment obedience orientation

·        Punishment and obedience are an individual’s main concerns.

·        The main motivation for obeying a rule is to avoid punishment and achieve gratification.

·        Being right means obeying authority.

Stage 2

The instrumental-relativist orientation/ Personal reward

·        The individual adopts an orientation of individualism and exchange.

·        Rules are followed if they are in the individual’s best interest.

·        Deals and compromises with others are sometimes used to solve problems.

·        Revealing a hedonistic orientation, morally right behavior depends on what satisfies one’s own desires.

·        In both stages in level1- the child is egoistic/ a hedonist.

·        Everyone has the right to do what he wants with himself and his possessions, even though his behaviour conflicts with the rights of others.

Level 2-----Conventional Morality

Judgments at this stage are based on the conventions of friends, family and society and on their approval.

Stage 3

The interpersonal-concordance orientation/Good boy or Good girl orientation

·        Moral reasoning is guided by mutual interpersonal expectations and conformity.

·        People try to do what is expected of them.

·        The concern is to meet external social expectation.

·        Concept of ‘right’ is there but nobody has the right to do evil.

·        Intentions become more important in judging a person’s behaviour.

Stage 4

Authority and social order-maintaining orientation/Law and order orientation

·        Individuals place importance on the social system, including laws, and on fulfilling obligations.

·        There is strong belief in law, order, duty and legitimate authority.

·        The observance of the golden rule------do unto others as you would have others do unto you-----is often the criterion in making moral judgments.

·        Maintaining the established order for its own sake.

Level 3------Post conventional morality

Moral thinking involves working out a personal code of ethics or self accepted moral principle. Acceptance of rules is less rigid----one might not comply with some of the society’s rules if they conflict with personal ethics.

Stage 5

The social-contract legalistic orientation

·        People recognize and try to balance the importance of both social contracts and individual rights.

·        Moral behavior reflects a concern for the welfare of the larger community and a desire for community respect.

·        More flexible understanding that we obey rules because they are necessary for social order but the rules could be changed if there were better alternatives.

Stage 6

The universal-ethical principle orientation/Morality of individual principle and conscience

·        Behaviors conform to internal principles [justice and equality] to avoid self-condemnation and sometimes may violate society’s rules—motivation is feeling right with oneself.

·        Individuals adopt an orientation towards universal principles of justice, which exist regardless of a particular society’s rules.

·        Reasoning assumes a conscience that is based on self chosen ethical principles that place the highest value on human life, equality and dignity.

·        Civil disobedience is not out of disrespect for law and order, but out of respect for a morality higher than the existing law.

·        Visionaries or moral leaders such as Abraham Lincoln, Nelson Mandela, and Martin Luther displayed this form of morality.

Evaluating Kohlberg’s theory

Kohlberg’s theory has generated enormous interest. It is the most nearly complete theory of moral development and psychologists have found that moral development in many situations seems to proceed roughly along the lines Kohlberg suggested even in other cultures such as Turkey and Israel.

But the theory has not gone without any criticism.

·        First, the scoring of scenarios is somewhat subjective and can lead to errors of interpretation. Kohlberg used moral dilemmas or scenarios and respondents were categorized into a moral level or stage according to their response to the scenario or moral dilemma. There was no objectivity in such a criteria due to the fact that classifications depended on the researcher’s perceptions of the response.

·        Second, stages of moral development seem to be less domain general than Kohlberg’s theory suggests [Kurtines & Greif, 1974]. The level of people’s responses may vary, depending on the particular scenario to which they respond.  In essence given different scenarios or dilemmas, people’s responses may render them classified into different stages which may rather compromise the reliability and validity of the theory. Further, evidence indicates that, contrary to the assumption of stage theories, people may regress to earlier stages of moral reasoning under certain circumstances such as under stress.

·        Third, Kohlberg’s own finding that people can regress in their behavior points out the weak link that often exists between thought/reasoning and action/behavior. [Kurtines & Greif].

           The link between moral thought and moral behaviour is often

      weak –thought/reasoning does not necessarily translate into

       behaviour. Kohlberg needless to say put too much emphasis on

      moral thought than on moral behaviour.

    

       Moral   judgment/reasoning/thought refers to the intellectual   

            or reasoning ability to evaluate the ‘goodness’ or ‘rightness’

            of a course of action in a hypothetical situation. Moral behavior

          refers to the individual’s ability in a real – life situation to resist the

          temptation to commit immoral acts. Someone may indeed nurture a

          higher level of moral development, but not act in ways consistent with

           that understanding. This inconsistency is an element of cognitive

           dissonance in social psychology reflecting a discrepancy often

           existing between attitude/thought/reasoning and subsequent

           behaviour. The implication here is therefore that people in essence

           often ‘preach what they themselves do not practice’.

·        Forth, the theory was originally validated on a relatively small sample of white, middle-class American males less than 17 years of age.

          Thus the theory is androgenic or centered on males. Although some

         investigators have found cross-cultural support for Kohlberg’s theory,

         others have found that in certain circumstances, such as the lifestyle of

         the communal Israeli kibbutz what is viewed as a higher level of

         morality differs from the value systems Kohlberg suggested.

        Apart from that the theory is ethnocentric [perspective biased

         towards one’s culture and judging others basing thereof] and

         eurocentric [that is biased towards the west] where people

         are generally individualistic hence lacking a cosmopolitan

         perspective. It may therefore not apply in communal or collective  

         societies because of its parochial nature. It is also argued that the

         scenario or dilemma responses were somewhat based on intuition that

          is instinctive knowledge or insight without conscious reasoning.

·        Fifth Kohlberg emphasized on cognitive reasoning about morality but overlooked other aspects of moral maturity such as character and virtue that operate to solve moral problems in everyday life [Walker and Pitts, 1998; Woolfolk, 2000]. The theory does not differentiate between social convention and moral issues in which an example of a convention may be- receive things with both hands and an example of

           a moral issue maybe- do not steal.

·         Finally Kohlberg also fails to adequately reflect the connectedness with and concern for others in individuals. Carol Gilligan [1982, 1985] argues that Kohlberg’s theory emphasizes a justice perspective that is a focus on the rights of the individual rather than a care perspective that sees people in terms of their connectedness.

GILLIGAN’S ALTERNATIVE TO KOHLBERG’S THEORY 

Carol Gilligan [1982] has proposed one alternative model of moral development arising from the criticisms to Kohlberg’s theory. She suggested that women tend to have a different conception of morality than do men.

According to Gilligan, whereas men tend to focus on abstract, rational principles such as justice and respect for the rights of others, women tend to view morality more in terms of caring and compassion. They are more concerned with issues of general human welfare and how relationships can contribute to it and be strengthened.

In particular women seem better able to show empathy, or the ability to understand how another person feels, when interacting with others. In general men tend to have a more competitive orientation, women a more co-operative orientation. Gilligan conducted several studies before she came up with her stage theory of moral development for women. Unlike Kohlberg’s study which used males only, Gilligan used adolescents both girls and boys aged 10-15 in her study. Thus her theory was not androgenic. However like Kohlberg she also used hypothetical dilemmas. One popular dilemma was the story of the porcupine, which went on like this:

A porcupine [nungu] was seeking refuge from the cold and asked to share a cave with the mole [mphuko] family. The moles agreed but the cave was too small, such that each time porcupine moved, its spikes scratched the moles. Moles complained bitterly and asked porcupine to leave their cave. But the porcupine refused and instead asked the moles to leave if they felt uncomfortable.

When the adolescents were asked what they thought of the situation?

Boys were quick to seek justice. Porcupine should leave because that is moles’ house. But girls looked for solutions that would take care of both of them. They suggested covering the porcupine with a blanket. From this study Gilligan concluded that:

·        Women are more concerned with caring than men.

·        What looks like weakness in women portrays their moral strength- caring is more virtuous than justice.

Gilligan like Kohlberg also thinks that moral development has three basic levels. She calls Level 1- preconventional morality, which reflects a concern for self and survival. Level 11- conventional morality, shows a concern for being responsible and caring for others. Level 111- postconventional morality, shows a concern for self and others as interdependent. Gilligan believes that Kohlberg underemphasized the care perspective in the moral development of both males and females and that morality’s highest level for both sexes involves a search for moral equality between oneself and others [Muuss, 1988].

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Berger, K [1999] The developing Person: Through Childhood and

Adolescence. New York: Worth Publishers.

Birch, A [1977] Developmental Psychology: From Infancy to

Adulthood. Houndsmill: Macmillan.

Cole, M [1963] Psychology of Adolescence. New York: Holt

Reinehart and Winston, inc.

Cole, M and Cole, S [1993] The Development of Children. New York: W.H.Freeman and Co.

Dembo, M [1991] Applying Educational Psychology. New York: Longman.

Elkind, D [1984]  Egocentrism in adolescence. Child Development, 38, 1025-1034.

Erickson, E [1968] Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: W. W. Norton.

Gross, R [2001] Psychology: The Science of Mind and Behavior;

 Kent: Greengate.

Hall, G.S [1904] Adolescence, Englewood Cliffs, and N.J: Prentice Hall.

Kalat, J [1990] Psychology: An Introduction; Belmount: Wordsworthy.

Kaplan, P [1986] Child’s Odyssey: Child and Adolescent Development. New York: West Publishing Co.

Marcia, J [1980] Ego identity development; in J.Adelson Handbook of Adolescent psychology. New York: Wiley.

Module [2001] Adolescent Psychology: Domasi College of

Education.

Mussen, P et al [1980] Essentials of Child Development

and Personality. New York: Harper and Row.

Muuss, R [1996] Theories of Adolescence, New York: The Mc Graw-Hill.

Mwale, M [2008] Behavioural change vis-à-vis HIV/AIDS Knowledge mismatch among adolescents: The case of some selected schools in Zomba. Nordic Journal of African Studies, 17[4]: 288-299.

Mwale, M [2008] Adolescent risk-perception, cognition and

self-assessment in relation to the HIV/AIDS pandemic: The Case of some selected schools in Zomba, Malawi, Psychology and Developing Societies, 20 [2]: 229-240.

          

Mwamwenda, S [1990] Educational Psychology: An African Perspective. Durban. Butterworks.

New Combe, N [1996] Child Development: Change over time, New York: Harper Collins College Publishers.

Nsamenang, A [2000] Adolescence in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Psychology and Developing societies,10[1]: 75-97.

Rogers, C [1969] On becoming a person. Boston: Houghton

Mifflin.

Santrock, J [1990] Adolescence; Duduque: Wm. C. Brown.

Szekeres, G [2000] HIV in adolescence; Bulletin of experimental Treatment for AIDS; San Francisco: AIDS Foundation.