On Moral Development

From: Gropp, Richard
Email: hades@cats.ucsc.edu
Course: PSYCH 100G: Diversity in Development
College: University of California, Santa Cruz
Instructor: Eugene Matusov
ClassWeb: http://www.ematusov.com/psych100G
ChildrenObservations: No
Date: 12 Dec 1996
Time: 05:52:13
Remote Name: scz-ca7-11.ix.netcom.com

Abstract

In attempting to reach a useful understanding of the nature of moral development across cultures, it is necessary to understand where morals come from and the purpose they serve. This can best be achieved through studying different views of morality. With this end in mind, we will examine the following topics: the sociological view describing the construction of diversity in the moral codes of individuals, the theory of empathy as a universal factor in the construction of a cohesive community –– as found in Freud's book _Civilization and it's Discontents_ –– and, finally, the link between moral reasoning and action found in Kohlberg's theory of moral development. We believe that in studying these diverse factors in the formation of moral codes, human beings can become more tolerant of cultural differences and learn to live together in a more harmonious state.

Paper

Morality, according to Webster's dictionary, is a doctrine or system of conduct defining principles of right and wrong in behavior. Within a society, these morals are represented as a collection of norms enforced upon the individual through the threat of sanctions –– punishment that can be either subtle or extreme, arising from such varied sources as culture, family and community. As Chris MacDonald puts it, in "Moral Decision Making –– An Analysis", morality is "a system of rules that modifies our behavior in social situations." This system of norms and values defines the behavior expected of members of the community; it differentiates between what is accepted as "good", and what is rejected as "bad". And, furthermore, within individual communities, these guidelines are viewed as universals, applicable to all individuals everywhere; the moral code serves as a way of evaluating the behavior of others, a way to pass judgment not only on those within the individual's community, but also those without.

But, as becomes obvious during the study of diverse cultures, a good part of these conceptions vary from community to community –– the morals one community holds as valid and true may prove completely alien to another. Differences such as this create a good deal of tension between cultures; these differences, more than anything else, serve to make different cultures seem foreign and reprehensible. Only in recognizing the aspects of diversity and universality in moral development, and recognizing its role in our reasoning, is it possible for human beings to become more tolerant of cultural differences in moral codes. We will attempt to achieve this through the study of three different views of moral development –– the sociological view of the individual's moral development, the Freudian conception of moral development in society, and Kohlberg's theory concerning the development of moral reasoning.

The sociological view of moral development provides us with a cogent answer to an important question: how does the shared morals of a community effect the production of an individual's personal moral code? We find this answer in tracing the overlapping affiliations of the individual within the complex social sphere.

Within the sociological community, it is generally accepted that moral codes are produced by the shared values of a community. But the communities sociologists such as Edwin H. Sutherland and Carol B. Stack study are not merely the type defined by geographic borders –– they also include such groupings as religious denominations, gender, race, political tendencies, and socio-economic status. These are all communities whose shared values help contribute to the moral code impressed on the individual. In his theory of "differential associations”, Edwin H. Sutherland hypothesized that immoral, criminal attitudes are developed through affiliation to groups with criminal norms (Sutherland, 1949). These behaviors, he claims, are learned and accepted as a part of group membership. Affiliation of this type helps form the individuals ideals; belonging to a gang, a political organization, a religious community, an economic strata, all have an effect on the individual’s moral development. Carol Gilligan also discovered disparity in moral codes along gender lines. In studies based on Kohlberg's theories of moral reasoning, she discovered that girls developed a sense of morals dependent on caring, whereas justice proved the basis of boys' moral reasoning (Gilligan, 1982). In further research, Carol B. Stack discovered that this gendered difference in moral reasoning has a facet based in national identity –– another community that helps change the multi-faceted face of moral development (Stack, 1995). All of these factors, all of these numerous community memberships, add layer after layer to the moral code adopted by the individual, forming a complex moral identity.

This sociological conception of moral development describes the process through which the individual derives his or her complex moral code, but the view it presents seems one based solely on diversity. In the second view we study –– Freud’s theory concerning the development of morality as a product of society –– we will confront an aspect of morality he proposes as universal: namely, empathy.

In Freud's view, morals developed as a means for human beings to live together in peace. In their natural state, unencumbered by social and societal constraints, human beings possessed no code of morals. Freud writes, "(T)he members of the community restrict themselves in their possibilities of satisfaction, whereas the individual knew no such restrictions." (p.49) Alone, in the wild, the concerns of the individual were all that mattered; he or she did not need to rely on the happiness and well being of others, and the restrictions of morals proved wholly unnecessary. Only with the creation of communities did moral codes come into being. People began to band together, finding superior strength in greater numbers. But with the attainment of greater strength came the restriction of individual action. Freud writes, "The power of the community is then set up as ‘right’ in opposition to the power of the individual, which is condemned as 'brute force'." (p.49) This was done because, in order to maintain the cohesive nature of a community, the selfish manner of individuals needed to be curtailed; conflict between a community's members only served to fragment a unified society into a number of warring individuals. Thus, in order to maintain stability, the actions of the individual became regulated by a generally accepted code of conduct. To protect individuals from their neighbors, it was necessary to ensure that no unpunished harm would befall them at their neighbors hands. This was achieved through enforcing upon the populace the concept of empathy –– the idea that you should do unto others as you would have done unto yourself. This institutionalized concept, enforced with punishment, became the first moral code; it served to assure that individuals were able to deal with each other in a less than violent manner (Freud, 1930).

An individual that prescribes to this Freudian conception of morality would claim that the universal aspects of morality arise solely from the concept of empathy. For instance, murder, harming others without reason, and stealing from others are –– despite the rare exception –– considered immoral throughout every society. These are all norms based on the concept of empathy: since one does not wish to be the victim of these actions, one should not perform these actions on other members within his or her community. These are concepts embraced by the majority of the community, and enforced as the community's morals.

Subsequently, Freud's views lead one to believe that the morality of the individual is based solely on his or her actions; this conception of morality serves its purpose as a societal tool, merely ensuring the continuity of the community. It does not find substance in the thoughts –– the empathy –– of the individual, but rather in his or her deeds. So, even though empathy would seem apparent in his or her actions, it might not be truly felt, or even understood, by this nominally "moral" individual; in this case, it is not empathy that prevents the harming of others, but merely the individual's fear of societal retribution. This distinction –– the distinction between reasoning and action –– is further explored in Lawrence Kohlberg's theory of moral development.

Where Freud views morality merely as a tool of society, Kohlberg studies its development in the reasoning of the individual. His theory claims that there is a fixed, universal set of moral stages that individuals within society can progress through, based on the principles underlying their moral reasoning. This reasoning is a variable completely independent of actual action, based solely on the individual's proclaimed justifications. In his research, Kohlberg recognized three basic stages of moral reasoning: Preconventional, Conventional, and Postconventional. According to Kohlberg, people operating in a Preconventional mind-set conform to morals merely to avoid punishment and to further their own goals. Those in the Conventional category possess empathy and wish to act morally in order to fulfill a societal obligation. Individuals at the Postconventional level see feelings and agreements as more important than self-interest, and they don’t hesitate in following the dictates of principle. (Cole & Cole, pp. 529-30) Kohlberg proposed that as individuals develop, so does their moral reasoning. As his or her sense of empathy and understanding of the world grows, the individual progresses through these three stages, developing a more complex understanding of moral relations. And, although many people's development may be halted before attaining the third level, he recognized the individual’s progression through this hierarchy as universal.

The process of reasoning Kohlberg strives to illuminate is one secondary to any type of moral reality. It is completely separated from action, and is rooted merely in one's relationship with the moral code. In the Preconventional level there is no empathy towards one's neighbors, nor is there an understanding of the necessity of a moral code; there is only the fear of retribution –– this is all that keeps the individual moral. In the Conventional stage, the individual feels empathy towards his or her neighbor, and wishes to promote moral behavior in order to avoid the breakdown of society; these two factors contribute to moral behavior. And, in the Postconventional stage, the individual acts morally because he or she recognizes the values and principles at the basis of the moral code and agrees with their intent. (Cole & Cole, pp. 528-29) So, while people in all three stages have different reasons for their actions, these actions are still confined by the same socially determined criterion of "right" and "wrong", and they are still actively motivated to perform in a way deemed "moral" by society. The complexity of their reasoning does not make their actions any more or less moral, it merely alters their motivation.

Kohlberg's theory has received criticism from many theorists, mostly for his statements of universality. The population he used in his research consisted mostly of white, middle-class, American males, and did not take into account possible variations arising from gender, culture, or socio-economic status. In fact, scholarship such as Gilligan's work with women (Gilligan, 1994), and research of moral development in foreign cultures, renders Kohlberg's claims of universality downright suspect. His research becomes even more questionable when we consider the work of researchers Carpendale and Krebs (Carpendale & Krebs, 1995). In studying the moral reasoning of individuals across a number of situations and contexts, they reach the conclusion that people do not progress through Kohlberg’s stages in the smooth, forward motion he describes; rather, individuals appear to fluctuate between stages according to the situation in which they find themselves. For instance, an individual may exhibit high level, Postconventional reasoning in a controlled, hypothetical situation, but when it comes to an actual business transaction, his or her moral reasoning may descend back into the Preconventional stage.

The topic of morality itself is a murky one, based not on concrete fact, but rather on conjecture. In attempting to explore the history of moral development, one is presented with many fragmentary, contradictory views, most of which are at least partly unsatisfactory –– for example, the Freudian view does not address the existence of diverse moral codes within the larger community, and Kohlberg’s theory does not acknowledge differences in individual development. But still, in studying this topic, it is possible to recognize the basis from which all moral codes develop, on both an individual and a community level. By studying the manner in which our individual moral codes developed –– based merely on our affiliations and our station in life –– we can recognize their almost arbitrary nature. And with this in mind –– the recognition that our own moral codes might easily have developed differently –– it becomes easier to empathize with the morals of foreign communities. Through this understanding, we can all learn to accept the existence of beliefs different from our own, recognizing them as sprouting from the same root as the ones we ourselves hold dear.

___References___

Stack, C. B. (1995). _Moral Development, in the context of race, class, culture, and consciousness._ Web Site: http://www.cdinet.com/Rockefeller/FemMasc/psj8.html

Carpendale, J., & Krebs, D. L. (1995). _Variations in the level of moral judgment as a function of type of dilemma and moral choice._ Journal of Personality, 63. 289-313.

Cole, M., & Cole, S. R. (1993). _The development of children._ New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.

Freud, S. (1930). _Civilization and its discontents._ New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Gilligan, C. (1994). _ In a different voice._ Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

MacDonald, C. (1995). _Moral decision making –– an analysis_. Web Site: http://www.ethics.ubc.ca/~chrismac/moral.decision.html

Sutherland, E. H. (1949). _Principles of criminology._ Chicago: Lippincott.

Last modified January 12, 1997