Kohlberg’s theory of moral development has motivated researchers to debate and criticise the theory based on its lack of explaining the roles of culture and family in moral development (Santrock, 2015). These criticisms form arguments against Kohlberg’s claim that his theory is applicable universally applicable to all children of all diversities (Matlala, 2011).
Kohlberg, as cited in Santrock (2015), does not ascertain the difference between moral reasoning and moral behaviour. Yet, critics have stated that there is a difference. If someone’s reasoning or thinking is moral, it does not necessarily mean that their actions reflect that thought process (Santrock, 2015). For example, what people say might fit into one of Kohlberg’s stages, but
…show more content…
Researchers have taken both sides of this argument and found that both Kohlberg’s emphasis and critics claims are partially correct. Tests have shown that most cultures develop morally in similar ways until about stage 4 and then the development from there varies greatly (Santrock, 2003).
According to Kohlberg, as cited in Santrcock (2015), parent-child relationships have little influence on the child’s moral development and that peer relationships are more important. Many critics have agreed with Kohlberg in the sense that peer relationships form an important part of a child’s development, but they maintain that parent-child relationships have an even bigger influence. They state that parental morals and values are taken in by the child and have an influence on their development of moral reasoning (Santrock,
…show more content…
According to Pekarsky (1998), the importance of the role of culture in moral development refers to a state in which an individual requires values, attitudes, norms and skills. It is seen as character that strengthens them to be morally mature. Thus, as cited in Pekarsky (1998), culture is important when referring to moral experiences and moral development. Participant A is from a specific cultural background as she said she was from a to Tswana family, just as her religion plays a role in her moral development and reasoning, her cultural values and rules will also play a
“Young children are just beginning to learn how to discriminate between right and wrong; in other words, they are developing a sense of morality” (Levine, 2016). They simply are developing the knowledge of what is right and what is wrong form themselves, but what the moral development helps them to know the difference in right and wrong and the best interest for others rather than themselves. “So, what is understood about morality as a child in middle childhood, is generally the level of reasoning most individuals will use in moral dilemmas or judging the morality of situations” (S. Tulane, personal communication, April 18, 2017). This development has an influence on everything that happens around them and the behaviors around
Conscience: Innate or Acquired? When attempting to determine how an individual’s moral compass is constructed, there are a number of theories to consider. Freudian philosophy suggests that the early years of a person’s life are crucial in shaping components of their psyche. Most can agree on this concept, but the question is, does physical environment or independent psychological evolution ultimately influence that development?
Cultures create their own theories of morality and teach their members to believe in it. Cultures can be death accepting, hedonistic, pessimistic,
Family Influences The style of parenting a child receives while growing up is very important when it comes to adulthood. Some children are taught by their parents on what to do and what mindsets to have in life, whereas some children use their parents' wrongdoings as an example on what not to do as an adult. “Nobody’s Son,” by Luis Alberto Urrea, shows the effect of bad parenting on a child throughout adulthood. “My Ecumental Father” by Jose Antonio Burciaga and "Mother Tongue” by Amy Tan, both show the effect that good parenting has on children.
Both sides of the nature versus nurture debate hold merit and have compelling arguments to answer the psychological question of whether behavior stems from inborn characteristics or learned practices - whether genes or surroundings are the root of human action and integrity. For Werner Pfennig of Anthony Doerr’s 2014 novel, All The Light We Cannot See, it is clear that the environments he lives in throughout his life influence his mannerisms and comportment. Werner is an excellent example of how the characteristics of external situations can impact morality - how nurture prevails over nature. The culture of the environments people find themselves in often unconsciously impact their virtues, and not always for the better. Growing up as orphans
Every day we use our culture. Whether it be to argue claims, express opinions, or make decisions, culture plays a part in each area. Culture is who we are, one’s identity, its extent is enormous over our views and actions. A person grows up surrounded with culture at a young age. This can affect how they learn and what they learn.
A person’s beliefs and morals are made up by culture and remain throughout your entire life. Culture is what made you the person you are today and also determines who or what you choose to associate yourself with. My identity would not exist if it were not for my own culture and the values I have carried from it along the years. The morals I have today exist
Although cultures throughout the world are distinct from one another, along with their own unique customs, there are set moral rules that every culture follows which plays a big role, in order for society to continue forward. Cultures are very different as described by James Rachels in “Morality Is Not Relative”. Cultural Relativism means that there are no set moral codes due to the fact that distinct cultures have distinct ideas when it comes to morals. For example, Rachel's supports his argument, by using multiple ways different people lived. Rachel’s points out a rarely discussed situation about Eskimos practicing infanticide.
Morality is not genetic and as a child grows, they will begin to understand what is right and wrong by the reaction of adults around them. Infants are egocentric and their sense of right and wrong develops from their own feelings and needs. Toddlers still don’t
Journal 2 - Brave New World In chapters 8 and 9 of Brave New World, the backstory of John’s growth within the Savage Reservation, as well as Linda’s lifestyle is explored. John’s upbringing within the village is filled with conflict and discrimination which is largely brought upon by his mother being a former citizen of the World State. The lifestyle and values that Linda is used to, causes the rest of the village to despise her and John, and treat them as outsiders: “In the strange other words they said that Linda was bad; they called her names he did not understand, but that he knew they were bad names” (111). Linda’s lack of knowledge in basic skills such as weaving, as well as her promiscuity and ignorance of the village’s values, causes
The Origin of Savagery Where does savagery come from? Are certain people evil from the moment they were born? Why do some people grow up as saints and leaders, while others grow up as killers and thieves? In Lord of the Flies and “Why Boys Become Vicious”, William Golding explains how one’s background and peers are able to affect who we are as people.
In class, the argument of Nature versus Nurture has been brought up, exemplifying that genes are good instinctively but the environment you grow up in is arguably way more important. Undoubtedly, good moral training is very important for
Gilligan ( 1997) achieved the conclusion that Kohlbergs hypothesis did not represent the way that ladies approach moral issues from a morals of consideration, instead of a morals of equity point of view, which moves a portion of the essential presumptions of Kohlbergs hypothesis. Additionally Critics have brought up that Kohlbergs hypothesis of good advancement overemphasizes the idea as equity when settling on good decisions. Commentators including Carol Gilligan have recommended that Kohlbergs hypothesis was sexual orientation one-sided since the majority of the subjects in his example were male. Kohlberg trusted that ladies had a tendency to stay at the third level of good advancement since they put a more grounded emphasis on things, for
As explained before, humans tend to be more “moral” to people of their own community, but this takes a somewhat ill-fated turn if we analyze it in depth. Our communities have always been based on accepting people that look or act like us, but nowadays, many have adopted the moral system that is based on the acceptance of differences and tolerance to everyone. Villamizar mentioned a video, in which the experiments showed kids a picture of a white and a black kid, and asked them to chose the prettier one. The (white) kids consistently chose the white option (Villamizar). In a similar way, Yale’s baby lab’s experts discovered that kids have certain behaviors that do not seem to correspond with our moral system today: “Kids are intensely tribal: 3-month-olds like people of their own race more than others, experiments have shown, and 1-year-olds prefer native speakers to those of another tongue.”
In Kohlberg's model of cognitive moral development, he explored “how people determined what was right or wrong in a particular situation” (Trevino 604). This model focuses on the “reasons an individual uses to justify a moral choice, rather than the decision itself” (Trevino 604). It is also concluded that “[o]ur biology does not prescribe the specific forms our morality takes” (Singer 337). An experiment in which situational ethics are present would be the Trolley Problem. This experiment provides participants with two options, “turn the train down the side track, killing one person, or continue straight ahead and kill the five workers” (Thomson 1).