Bandura's Theory Of Moral Development

Although there are two different perspective, they should not be separated when achieving better social competence because they are mutually supportive. Smith Bowers, Binney and Cowie (1993) found that a child who gives priority to peer dominance goals may resort to aggressive bullying. In this case, the individual hardly considered other domains so unhealthy relationship with peer would be established. To find a balance between autonomy and connectedness is one of the important challenges in our life (Baltes & Silverberg, 1994; Connell, 1990). Best social competence as well as success can only be achieved by finding a balance between self and other domains and even obtaining a collaborative strategy.

When you behave in a good way, and do good deeds you get rewarded which are a positive reinforcement. When you do bad deeds, and always get into trouble you get consequences for that and that is a negative reinforcement. Positive reinforcement gives a person a positive emotional effect and it will lead to calm and better behavior and actions. I still have not done research on what happens when this specific reinforcement does not work for people. Like the question I wondered above, what happens when people do not learn from their consequences and continue to behave a certain way?

Skinner had the view that even though there are many things going through our minds it is more productive for us to study a person's observable behavior. He believed that classical conditioning was much to simple of an approach. Skinner thought that we could understand behavior by studying the root causes of actions and their consequences. The idea is that a behavior that is followed up by unwanted consequences is not likely to be repeated. The opposite of that is that behavior that is reinforced is likely to be repeated.

4. Punishment (weakens behavior) Punishment is defined as the opposite of reinforcement since it is designed to weaken or eliminate a response rather than increase it. Like reinforcement, punishment can work either by directly applying an unpleasant stimulus like a shock after a response or by removing a potentially rewarding stimulus, for instance, deducting someone’s pocket money to punish undesirable behavior.

Theoretical Framework This study was anchored on the Constructivist Theory. Constructivism is defined by Cunanan-Cruz (2002) as an educational theory whereby learners construct their own knowledge by a natural ability to think, by learning from the environment, or by combination of both natural ability and environmental influences, where the result is an autonomous, intellectual learner. Constructivism influences instructional theory by encouraging discovery, hands-on, experiential, collaborative, project-based, and task-based learning. It has roots in cognitive psychology and biology and is an approach to education that lays emphasis on the ways knowledge is created while exploring the world. Exemplars of constructivist theory may be found in the works of John Dewey, Maria Montessori and David Kolb.

It is not about punishing a child for doing something wrong but, about setting clear parameters and consequences for breaking rules so that they learns how to discipline themselves. A child who has been taught right from wrong and has a solid sense of what negative and positive behavior is. They will know when they have done something wrong.

So how can an individual embrace their soul, while holding onto the Way, and keep it from retiring; it is asking if it is possible to keep oneness if the individual holds onto the soul and mind. The second line is focused on the relationship between qi and the ability to be a child; the individual should focus on their qi and focus on attaining suppleness in order to be agile like a newborn baby. To be child-like is to be pure like since a newborn child is unaware of contending and has the ability to achieve non-action better than an adult who is aware of everything in the world. The third line speaks about cleaning and purifying one’s enigmatic vision until one can see no flaw; as the mind is the mirror, it focuses on how one should clean the mind in order to see the light: enlightenment. The fourth line is about the state and knowledge, as the ruler is knowledgeable, can he care and lead the people; it is difficult to govern the people if they know too much.

However, from the other three principles, the “Golden rule” principle, the “Relationship” principle, and the “Community” principle, these all directly correlate to how one should act in a wronging situation. They all give proof that it is not necessary to wrong someone who has wronged you in order to make a right. However, just because we have proof that it’s a better answer to let it go than to wrong someone who has wronged you, in no way means that people will stop wronging people who have wronged

However, it does leave room for two significant counter arguments, 1) that children are, by nature, actors which have their autonomy violated in some sense by the parents the nurturing process and gene selection is not a radical departure from the exercising of preference present in rearing, and 2) the perpetuation of sexism is not an issue because less of the disadvantaged group would give them more power in the society. Although these are strong objections to the claims made in the argument, an sufficient response can be made to each. To the first counter, although children are inevitably the subjects of the parent’s will, by allowing the parent to shape the child so radically so early in the relationship, the relationship between parent and child is ultimately different. The influence and goals of the parent become the foundation of the “family,” and individual desire will be undermined. To the second argument, a historical response could be offered.

In addition, Mill proposes his own principle of morality, which also disagrees with Kant view, that he calls the “Utilitarian Principle” that states: “Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” According to this principle, we look at the consequences of our actions and judge, whether they bring about more happiness than