Moral Development

Moral Development Introduction: Moral reasoning 1 is a thinking process that determines whether an idea is right or wrong. When one thinks about his/her actions in a particular situation, in order to deduce the inherent rightness or wrongness of his/her decisions, one has to inevitably take into consideration one’s immediate environment. But the rightness of a decision or an action also depends on how it will affect the person immediately influenced by it and the larger society, nation, world and so on. So there is not a simple checklist that enables every person to determine whether the formulated idea is right or wrong. This great arena of moral reasoning that has been the fancy of philosophers, kings, poets and common man alike is the focus of this assignment. Keeping in mind Kohlberg’s theory of moral development, this paper attempts to analyse the responses of different people to a moral dilemma devised by Kohlberg himself called Heinz’s dilemma. In the second part of the paper, the implications of Kohlberg’s moral development theory on classroom practice and parenting are explored. However it has to be noted that this paper takes into consideration only one dilemma used by Kohlberg himself in categorising people into different stages, a method that is rather incomplete for such a categorisation. This paper doesn’t factor in the role of culture and gender that affect a person’s morality as Kohlberg’s theory itself doesn’t account for these. Part 1: The participants were interviewed on the following dilemma using a set of varied questions that inquired about their reasoning in the light of the subject’s personal relationships, society and law. Heinz’s dilemma: In Europe, a woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to make. He paid $400 for the radium and charged $4,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money and tried every legal means, but he could only get together about $2,000, which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that 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 if." So, having tried every legal means, Heinz gets desperate and considers breaking into the man's store to steal the drug for his wife. Response 1:

1

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Introduction_to_Moral_Reasoning/What_is_Moral_Reasoning%3F

A 5 year old child Aditri from Bengaluru city responded that come what may Heinz shouldn’t have stolen since stealing is a bad thing for which one gets punished by the God. Analysis: This child is at level 1 of preconventional morality and stage 1 of obedience and punishment orientation. The child disagrees with Heinz’s actions and explains her reasoning in terms of consequences Heinz will face for his act. The child still doesn’t reason like someone who is part of making the society but views rules (and punishments) to be something set in stone that is handed over by an authority (in this case God). The child is of the view that only those acts that are permitted by God are worthy of engaging in. Here it is also important to note that the idea about what God thinks is right and wrong is transferred over to the child by her parents and she willingly accepts their advice without questioning. Response 2: A 12 year old girl, Chinmaya from a small village ‘Ammanaghatta’ in Tumkur district of Karnataka analyzed the dilemma in her mind and answered that Heinz should not steal at any cost. Instead she suggested that Heinz should employ all his might in securing the required amount of money either by pawning/selling his property/jewelry. She is of the opinion that if Heinz gets discovered for stealing then he might lose dignity in society, something worst that can happen to anyone. She quoted a proverb in Kannada ‘praana hodru maana hogbardu’ which is ‘honor is above life’ when loosely translated into English. The child’s perception about law was that big people like lawyers make them and it is not Heinz’s area to interpret it. He should concentrate on keeping his honor intact. Analysis: Chinmaya is at level 2 of conventional morality and at stage 3 of good interpersonal relationships. At this stage the child is concerned about the ‘good boy-good girl’ image in society. She isn’t thinking in pre-conventional stage since it is evident that she doesn’t evaluate this act of Heinz in terms of consequences laid out by an authority and neither in terms of Heinz’s individual preferences. She is judging his act on purely the community or societal norms she imbibed from her rural community where a family’s honor and dignity is priced above everything else. She is not concerned about the social order (stage 4) or law but only with Heinz’s dignity in society. Chinmaya is expressing a view that her evaluation of the situation is right because she believes that the entire society reflects a view that one would lose dignity by stealing. Hence anyone in his place doing this act either for a wife or a pet would be at wrong. Response 3: A 29 year old Bengaluru residing male, Harshith responded to the dilemma in this manner: Heinz is morally right in stealing because he had tried all other means of securing money and persuading the druggist. Although it is legally wrong, Heinz’ act was done with a good

intention of saving his beloved’s life. Had he not loved his wife or if it were a stranger then Heinz wouldn’t have gotten into such extreme measure of stealing. Since such lives do not affect his life much, he would have gone about his life without saving their lives. However in the case of his pet, if he loved it a lot so that its absence might affect his life badly then he should have saved. If Heinz had little more time on his hand, he should have tried ways of procuring money from organizations, high worth individuals, media publicity etc., and should have avoided breaking the law as much as possible. About law and judiciary system, Harshith is of the opinion that law is yet another guideline to lead one’s life and it can never be the ultimate rule book for any person. An individual has to decide for himself/herself as to what should be his/her action at any given circumstance. To achieve responsible action by every member of the society one should empower them in humanistic way of thinking through educational tools. Existing laws or process of democracy that we currently employ needn’t always give us the best situation. Harshith quoted U.S laws about alcohol a century and a half ago that had decreed it illegal and pointed out that now it is very much legal for adults to consume liquor in that part of the world. He also quoted Winston Churchill on democracy: “democracy is the worst form of government, except for all others”. Harshith believes that laws and society always keep evolving and the current ways of judiciary as we know it need not be the absolute best. Harshith showed hope that Heinz could actually use his situation to alter a certain law in his region. Analysis: Harshith is at level 3 of postconventional morality and stage 6 of universal principles. To realize that whatever best form of governance (in general and democratization of law formation in particular) we have today might also change tomorrow is an act of highest moral development. Harshith described the fluid nature of societal and judiciary evolution whereby he established that there is no law of the land that is absolute in nature and everything evolves depending on the changing needs of the society. So to decide justice for any group in a situation, there could always be a better system. This is not a stage 5 response of ‘social contract and individual rights’ because Harshith’s definition of law and right way of forming them do not conform to the current means (democracy) in society. He also doesn’t uphold law as beneficial to a larger group. Instead he speaks of ways in which faulty judiciary of society should change in order to find the best way to achieve justice. Response 4: 34 year old, Shivaraj from a hobli headquarters called ‘Chelur’ in Tumkur district of Karnataka shared his response to Heinz dilemma in this manner: Heinz was ‘right’ in stealing from the ‘greedy’ druggist since in spite of employing all the means he was aware of; Heinz couldn’t gather the required funds. In order to save his loved one, this was the only way left. But Shivaraj also opined that if Heinz did not love his wife and in the case of a stranger, Heinz needn’t go to the great lengths of stealing because these prospects did not hold any benefit to Heinz. It will be an utter waste of time, energy and his life if Heinz saves any of the above mentioned cases. Shivaraj believes that this situation doesn’t apply to a pet because the rules of humanity cannot be extended to animals. An animal life is just that, an animal life and it can in no way equate to the precious life of a human being.

Interestingly Shivaraj also commented that people should go to any lengths to save a person’s life. This is in contradiction to his views on societal laws which he thinks should be followed to avoid lawlessness and crimes. He declares that although what Heinz did was legally wrong it still is right in the moral sense of saving a person’s life. Even if Heinz gets arrested for the theft, Shivaraj believes that the judge will give him a less severe punishment and Heinz also has the provision in law to sue the druggist on humanitarian grounds. This he indicates might even lead to the change in a clause of punishment in court. He goes further ahead to make a claim that if he is in Heinz’ place he would definitely steal to save his loved wife as he has the confidence that his friends/relatives will pay and release him on a bail. Analysis: Shivaraj is thus at level 2 of conventional morality and at stage 4 of maintaining social order. Shivaraj’s response is very convoluted for analysis since he gives seemingly contradicting responses at various stages of moral development as indicated by Kohlberg. When talking about the treatment meted out to a loved versus unloved wife, stranger and pet Shivaraj seems to be at a stage 2 of individualism and exchange wherein he is thinking purely in the benefits that Heinz would gain out of the saved life. But Shivaraj doesn’t limit himself to the tenets of individuals exchanging favors because he analyzes Heinz’ situation in the light of practical functioning of judiciary of the land. Hence he is beyond pre-conventional stage. Furthermore, Shivaraj isn’t limiting his evaluation to Heinz’ moral position in his community. Shivaraj is talking about how the judiciary might react to Heinz’s crime of theft and how exactly there is a provision to bring in the moral intention behind his act. He evaluates how Heinz’ actions might impact society at large by indicating the probable judgment reserved for his action. Shivaraj shows moral autonomy and believes that the punishment for Heinz’s crime will be based on his intentions. Response 5: A 57 year old woman, Gowri from Chikkamagaluru city in Karnataka responded to the dilemma in this manner: What Heinz did was true to his ‘swadharma’ (Mehta & Whitebread, 2004). There is no exact one way of doing things. What is moral and right for me could be wrong for another person. Hence each person acts according to what situation demands of him. In this case life the precious thing among all was at risk and what Heinz did was justified. If Heinz was a person who valued societal expectations then he wouldn’t steal for a stranger or a pet. But if it were some outlaw like Robin hood then he would steal which would then be perfectly in alignment with his sense of morally right action. Hence every action is situation bound. The intention behind Heinz’s act matters the most and hence the judge might also take pity on him and subject Heinz to a less severe punishment. After all, judiciary ought to be a responsible and sensible system. Analysis: Gowri is at a level 3 of postconventional morality and stage 5 of social contract and individual rights.

Gowri points out several elements of what a ‘good society’ ought to be according to her. She mentioned a sensible judiciary, right to life taking precedence over right to profit. All this is told in the light of Hindu religion that speaks of ‘aapad dharma’ (dharma at times of distress) that allows one to overrule any existing boundaries set by law and practice what is best for that situation. She believed that she was right in her analysis since that is the Hindu way of looking at morality which is “epistemologically significant context-dependent moral thinking” (Mehta & Whitebread, 2004). Thus Gowri is of the opinion that one “cannot impose a universal morality on everyone” (ibid.). Heinz was shown to have a moral right to employ any means to save his dying wife. Part 2: Utility of Kohlberg’s theory in classroom practice Philip Jackson (1968)2 gives the concept of ‘Hidden Curriculum’. Hidden curriculum is all the “unstated norms, values, and beliefs embedded in and transmitted to students through the underlying rules that structure the routines and social relationships in school and classroom life” (Giroux,2011). All aspects of a school culture such as the dispositions of the management and faculty, structures and procedures, modes of knowledge transacted, pedagogical means and assessment, informal interactions among students and teachers etc., deeply affect students. Hence to facilitate the moral development of a child in school not only the traditional teacher-student relationship in the four walls of a classroom needs to be explored but also the entire learning experience of a child in school needs to be thought through. Children should learn in a morally consistent environment that enables reflection on actions constantly. Kohlberg has firmly established that explicit teaching of morality is rarely successful. Below suggestions attempt to build such a learning environment in school that fosters moral development in children:  





2

The teachers/school staff should encourage and appreciate the good behavior of children whenever they display them. This contributes to children’s knowledge about acceptable and non-acceptable behavior in a social setting. Children should be involved in rule-making in the classroom/school setup. This can be brought about by setting rules/consequences using an anchor chart that the children themselves come up with. Teachers should take upon themselves to establish the reason behind each and every rule so that the children own up the rules as a part of natural dialogue in the classroom. Whenever there are mistakes on part of the children or the teacher, instead of concentrating solely on the aspect of rule breaking, the teachers should draw attention to how such an incident has adversely affected somebody else’s well-being. This will foster a sense of empathy and justice in children. As a result the children grow closer to understanding the moral stance of justice behind every unruly action. To develop post-conventional stage of moral development, understanding other’s perspectives and placing oneself in the bigger picture of society and common good is essential. This can be fostered through encouraging learning methodologies such as involving in a role-play, story-telling that involves conflicts and unusual/unconventional solutions to them (through this the children understand that morality isn’t something handed down by authorities and that it is a constantly evolving prerogative aspect of human society), discussing the moral dilemmas in the

http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/change/603/Hidden%20curriculum.pdf







current socio-political scenarios [allowing students to develop project work (street play, interviews, community project, presentation and documentation) on the current issues is a constructivist approach to moral development]. Children should also be allowed to face situations that involve moral dilemmas (classroom politics, games, friction between student choice and administrative decisions in the school) and teachers should bring these issues to the foreground of classroom discussion whenever possible. The classes of circle time, language studies and social science are good sites to engage with these issues. Students should be encouraged to maintain journals and be provided with structured (faculty advisor, small focus groups) as well as unstructured time to engage with their own personal life dilemmas and be given resources (books, videos, real-life anecdotes) to understand the stages of moral development that they go through. The management of the classroom should move away from the rule-dependent, highly reductionist and behavioristic approaches. Instead every deviant behavior in the classroom should follow the steps of self-evaluation and reasoning followed by a problem-solving approach under the guidance of a teacher. The children should be aware of the underlying reasons and the outlook behind their actions.

Utility of Kohlberg theory in parenting: Parental care and disciplinary practices go a long way to determine the cognitive and moral development of a child. Considering the three levels of moral development by Kohlberg viz., preconventional, conventional and postconventional stages, a child’s access to parental care and discipline determines the transition from one level to another. The younger children who are at preconventional stage of moral development consider rules and regulations to be set in stone and handed down by authorities. The children at conventional stage assume a good boy-good girl role in the society mainly to induct themselves into the societal conventions, obligations and expectations. The adolescent children who are at level 3 of postconventional morality recognize the rights of individuals in a society, yet act according to their own personal principles of justice. The factors of power assertion (use of adult power over their children as a disciplinary measure), love withdrawal (use of love withdrawal as a behavioristic tool to correct children) and induction (using rationale and reasoning to explain to the children the sense of right and wrong) determine the parenting style. Baumrind (1978) categorized parenting styles based on the warmth (as given by the parental responsiveness) and control (parental demandingness) the parents exercised over their children. The below table illustrates the four kinds of thus observed parenting styles: Parenting type Authoritative Authoritarian Permissive Neglectful

Parental (responsiveness) High Low High Low

warmth Parental (demandingness) High High Low Low

control

Kohlberg’s stages of moral development gives us a direction as to which parenting style is the best suited for the moral development of a child. Social learning theorists believe that the imitation and likeness to the closest ones result in the cognitive and moral development of a child. Thus it is evident that a neglectful parenting style that shows very little warmth or control over a child results in the child developing emotional aloofness and a lack of empathy (the behavior meted out to the child is what the child in turn displays). Looking at the

permissive parenting style reveals that although the parents show warmth towards the children, a control over wrong behavior is lacking. There is an illusion of supportive environment even for the display of morally regressive behavior. A child grown up in such an environment with excessive approval of all the right as well as wrong things he/she does, will not gain the maturity to show empathy and justice and thus limit himself/herself to preconventional stage which is ego-centric. Meanwhile the authoritarian parenting style creates an environment where much stress is laid out on the children following rules and regulations set by the parents. It becomes intractable for children to realize that rules can change and they are very much capable of designing them by themselves. Instead they increasingly depend on the parents to show them the way and eventually lose out on the moral autonomy. The children will at best stay at conventional level of morality where they act as rule following citizens adhering to what best their immediate community expects out of them. The authoritative parenting style in turn shows a child both warmth and control. Children grown up with such parents show a well formed intellectual and moral autonomy in taking decisions. Such parents adopt reasoning as a tool to set rules as well as to follow them. Whenever children break rules, authoritative parents often focus their attention on discussing how such an act was a sign of lack of empathy. The rules themselves aren’t sacrosanct but the empathy and fair environment that they create are. According to Kohlberg, parenting that involves Socratic dialogue and reason only helps a child to reach postconventional morality wherein the child can increasingly think independently, constantly adjusting to the changing rules and situations in the society. Such children are found to have developed empathy, responsiveness to the distress of others in their community, good self-esteem, self-control leading to better social and moral maturity. Children and parents share a close and mature relationship in such families. However, it must be noted that Kohleberg’s theory of moral development does not account for the sex difference in morality. Male children are found to base their moral judgment on justice and autonomy while female children base theirs on care and responsibility. Furthermore, in communities where the children get socialized by involving themselves in culturally and socially valuable activities, the moral development of a child doesn’t get majorly affected by only the parents. Other community members who get intimately involved in a child’s life equally contribute and meddle in the moral development of a child. In such cases one needs to be cautious while analyzing the factors affecting a child’s moral development. References: 1. Crain, William (2011). Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral development. Theories of Development, Concepts and Applications (Ch. 7) (6th Edition). Prentice Hall: New Jersey. 2. Mehta. S & Whitebread. D (2004). Philosophy for Children and moral development in the Indian context, First Global Conference on Philosophy with Children, Sage Publications, pp: 319 - 337 3. Berkowitz, Marvin W. and John H. Grych (1998). Fostering Goodness: Teaching Parents to Facilitate Children's Moral Development. Journal of Moral Education, 27(3), pp. 371-391.

4. http://www.earlychildhoodnews.com/earlychildhood/article_view.aspx?ArticleID=56 5, retrieved on 05.07.2016 5. http://blog.kipp.org/developingcharacter/how-were-shifting-school-culture-throughrestorative-justice/, retrieved on 05.07.2016 6. Snarey, John and Pavkov, Thomas (1991). Beyond Socialisation Versus Development: Kohlberg’s Approach to Moral Education. Sociological Focus, Vol. 24, No.2, Special Issue: The Sociology of Morals (May 1991), pp. 105-115 7. Giroux, H.A. (2001) ‘Schooling and the Politics of the Hidden Curriculum’ in Theory and Resistance, Westport, Bergin and Garvey 8. https://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/cross_fac/iatl/activities/modules/ugmodules/ethicalb eings/ps__dev_of_moral_reasoning.pdf, retrieved on 8th August, 2016 9. http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/s4/f2/dsk3/ftp05/MQ64020.pdf, retrieved on 8th August, 2016