Psychological Concept Of Morality And Moral Development In A Society

Psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg and the minds behind the Moral Foundations Theory explain from where morals come from, but to answer the question of the psychological concept of morality - how people determine what is right and wrong- the psychology of morality must extend far past the ‘where’. After basic core foundations are identified, it is important to theorize the ‘how’ and the ‘why’ people choose between the core foundations. Why people think their views are right, why they might be predestined to view things a certain way, and how society can sway the individual’s moral compass. The physical interworkings of the individual can provide insight, but decisions are affected by more than one’s physiology. Why people believe in what they do reaches into their cognitive processes and their environment; it invades all they believe in and is different for everyone. Through biological focus, humans develop morals through genetically passed down behavior traits, their physiological responses, and their ever-changing mind. The cognitive level holds that schemas and emotions held by people influence their interpretation of behavior. As for the sociocultural focus, the stress society puts on its people to conform to authority, the tendency for it to elevate emotions, and the want of people to fit in or stand out contributes to the development of morality. In all, people across the globe maybe different in the moral decisions they make, but when taking a closer look at how they got to their values, one can see that morality is not arbitrary.

Following the two other focuses is the sociocultural level that looks towards how society affects individual morality. Society influences morals by either making them universal or pushing the individual away from what is socially acceptable. A concept that plays an influential role in the changing of moral values is group polarizing. One finds this concept frequently in heightened emotion protests where a mob mentality is formed. People, otherwise respectful, when put in a situation with emotionally charged peers, they can commit acts not previously thought of to be moral to them. Fitting with group polarization is also another component called peer pressure. The pressure to be like everyone else can cause moral beliefs to be thrown out or adjusted to suit the opinions of others. On the opposite side, things like the “Screw You” effect, where someone knows they are being watched and makes unethical decisions to mess with the person, even if they did not agree with the action, exists. When looking at the specific psychological factors that cause compliance to society’s rules, another thing to look at is individual’s obedience to authority. Individuals tend to trust authority figures and follow their direction, be it out of fear, general agreement, or lack of knowledge. An instance where individual’s compliance to authority reached extreme levels was in the Milgram Experiment. Stanley Milgram, an American psychologist from the 1960’s, conducted an experiment to test how far people’s obedience can affect their moral judgements. Milgram had volunteers come in and take the role of the “teacher” in a learning experiment. The “learner”, who was in on the study, expressed a heart problem prior to starting, but was to be given electric shocks none the less. The teacher was instructed to ask a question and for every wrong answer, they would have to administer an electric shock. The scientist who represented the authority instructed the teacher to continue with the research passed the point of severe shock. More than sixty-five percent of participants went all the way into life threatening voltages. The authority presence led them to continue. There was also a diffusion of responsibility that helped keep their value of not harming another person, separate from their actions. They were not the ones in charge and thus were not responsible. In addition, society’s religion plays a major role. Beliefs on how one should live are predetermined and passed through generations. Religion, for some, takes the place of individual exploration into what should be right and wrong. For others, religion encourages reflection and exploration, but provides a common core in which principles are built. Either way, society’s spirituality seeks to direct the moral values of its followers to a more acceptable conclusion. The sociocultural analysis of morality considers how things like peer and authority influence, accepted laws, and religious concepts drive moral development.

Furthermore, the cognitive approach to studying morality looks at the way in which people organize are the focus and process information, and how the information gathered determines what they view as right and wrong. When looking at how values come about through cognition, the thought processes. There are behavioral components: it is said that children learn what to believe from their parents- reinforcements, such as punishments and rewards, are given to develop the concept of right and wrong. Likewise, people use observation and mimic the values being rewarded. In addition to rewards and punishments being a factor in children, children are not able to extend their world outside of themselves and at an early age, are self-focused. This self- focus can extend well past childhood and into adulthood, influencing moral decisions. Self-absorption or self-aiding tendencies, also called egocentrism, contribute to moral development focusing on the betterment of the individual and the individual alone. The need for validation drives their actions and beliefs. For instance, a child is less likely to steal if he or she knows their parent would be disappointed in them. One theory for morality under the cognitive focus is the Schema Theory. The Schema Theory holds that the way we process information is determined by previous knowledge acquired and organized into cognitive structures. These structures provide organizational framework about one’s environment and memories, called schemas. Schemas are used often to filter through the mass quantity of information, allowing gaps to be filled in with knowledge from prior, similar instances. Schemas can be both beneficial and detrimental when it comes to moral judgment. For example, one police officer named Jason Stockley, who had shot and killed an unarmed man named Anthony Smith, claimed that after a police chase over an alleged drug deal, the 24-year-old black man reached into his car to grab a gun. Stockley took his schemas of drug dealers developed from past experiences and applied them to the case with Smith. He felt firing on Smith was the best choice to make and, in that act, felt just in his actions. He felt it was right to kill Anthony Smith for Stockley himself feared for his life. As to whether Smith was reaching for a gun is left to the law and public opinion, but regardless of what Stockley saw, he acted upon the schemas he had in place to decide what was the best choice to make in the worst scenario: his life, or the life of a man he perceived to be a dangerous drug dealer.

In addition to schemas, emotions affect the morals developed. How an individual reacts to a certain stimulus determines how they interpret the act. Even whether the topic will be given weight is determined by emotion. The Appraisal Theory of Emotion, developed by Lazarus, looks at how people evaluate situations according to the significance they have for them. Primary appraisal of a situation proposed the questions, according to Alan Law et al.: Is the situation relevant to my goals? Is it favorable? Who is responsible? Depending on how one answers these questions determines the level of emotional impact it will have on the individual. The more importance and emotional impact it has, the more the person is likely to develop beliefs and values as a result. Take cheating on a test as an example. It has been taught that cheating is morally wrong, but say a student needs to receive an ‘A’. The student then answers the questions. He believes the situation is relevant to his goal of getting into college. In this case, cheating is favorable to his goals. Who is responsible for what is happening? He might have a self-serving bias and blame the teacher. The anger towards his “incompetent” teacher might allow him to justify cheating as a just act. Morality through cognitive focuses is affected by the way people interpret the world and people around them.

After the question of ‘from where’ is explored, the question as to ‘how’ needs to be addressed by first taking a biological standpoint. Human biology plays a major role in the development of morals. To start, morals can be adjusted to suit a person’s bodily needs. People tend to focus on what is best for themselves and by doing the right thing, they hope to provide themselves with the best chance at successful survival. More emphasis is placed on materialistic and selfish needs like food, water, and sexual satisfaction as opposed to extrinsic motivation. For instance, in most faiths, premarital sex is a sin, or an act condemned by one’s faith, but the accepted moral value is not adopted by all. The physiological responses of pleasure can motivate people to house values they might not normally have. Likewise, our genetic disposition affects our thought processes. It is known that behavior patterns can be inherited. Through twin studies, animal models, and adoption cases, evidence for genetically passed predispositions for certain behaviors exist. Alcoholism, for example, is a behavior that has been shown to be inherited. The inherited individual has deemed consuming alcohol as morally okay. Of course, there are other factors, but due to their biology, they must make peace with their habit and create an excuse for their actions. They change their morals to suit their body’s needs and alleviate distresses. To further, the everchanging nature of values throughout one’s lifetime can be attributed to the neuroplasticity of the brain. The human mind does not fully develop until the age of twenty-five. Neuroplasticity, as quoted by Alan Law et al. , “is the concept that, although localization of function occurs, the specific location of a function is not necessarily fixed for all individuals, and the areas of the brain dedicated to certain functions can be redistributed according to environmental demands”. The brain has designated areas for processes to occur, but the neuroplasticity of the brain allows for the redistribution of focus. An example of this would be when a person performs an activity for an extended amount of time. They develop neurological pathways and become more familiar with the activity. If they were to abandon the activity, their connections would remain, and the regions connected to the physical act committed will light up even if they only see the activity taking place. Depending on external factors, a brain can evolve to better suit its stressors. This goes to show that the brain is always changing, and the diversity shifts mental thought processes. Biologically, the processes in the body as well as the need for survival influences morals.

In addition to Kohlberg’s theory on the causes of morality, a relatively new theory called the Moral Foundations Theory aims to explain how morality can vary across cultures but maintains underlying commonalities and themes, or intuitive ethics. The cultural and social psychologists on the theory found six basic “foundations” of morality: care versus harm, fairness versus cheating, sanctity versus degradation, loyalty versus betrayal, authority versus subversion, and liberty versus suppression. It is said that from these foundations our moral values develop. MoralityThe first foundation of morality, or the care versus harm foundation of morality, addresses the evolution of dislike for the pain of others. For example, if a member of the social circle’s livelihood is threatened, one’s own can be consequentially affected either emotionally or physically. Emotionally, empathy prompts people to alleviate their own pain felt towards a struggling individual by providing aid. Physically, moral values are adapted to suit survival needs and avoid injury. The next foundation is fairness versus cheating in relation to the ideas of justice and rights. It is said that this foundation stems from the concept of reciprocal altruism, or the mutually understood selflessness people have for each other. People either practice morals based around reciprocal altruism or selfish self-benefit. Following is a similar concept surrounding the treatment of others called loyalty versus betrayal. Since the modern-day human, alliances have been formed, creating a sense of patriotism among the group. The struggle between sacrificing oneself for the good of the group and saving oneself forms differing values depending on the person. Another foundation in which people base their values on is the idea of sanctity versus degradation. It touches upon the psychology of disgust and religion, both ideas that generally view the human body as a “temple” and that certain acts and substances taint it. From the foundation grows moral values such as abstinence. Regarding the values that deal with society, there are two foundations claimed to be the roots: Authority versus subversion and liberty versus oppression. The first is said to have been molded by the ever-existing hierarchical societies, causing leadership and submissive qualities to form. Feelings of respect for tradition stemming from this foundation can lead to obedient morals. On the other hand, the liberty versus oppression draws on the resentment of being controlled and restricted. The presence of the two foundations creates tension. Just like with Kohlberg’s theory, the Moral Foundation’s Theory has its faults. Overall, the Foundations were thought to be the automatic, gut-level reactions developed through evolution that one has to life’s difficult questions. The theory is biased. The creators leaned the theory to respect views not agreed upon by all of society. For example, there was a poll taken on the fairness foundation that reported: “…justice and related virtues (based on the fairness foundation) make up half of the moral world for liberals, while justice-related concerns make up only one fifth of the moral world for conservatives”. Though the foundations do seem to influence moral values across culture, the weight of importance of each varies for different groups, causing the biases of the theory to be questioned.

Kohlberg’s theory gives a rough timeline of a person’s moral capability, a timeline that has been proven relatively accurate. Although Kohlberg’s theory of morality can be supported, criticisms are copious. For instance, his theory holds that there is one definitive set of steps in which all must be achieved in order or else ultimate moral reasoning cannot be had. However, studies show it is possible for a preschool aged child to house vague concepts of ethical principles. Some children can distinguish between a moral action and an arbitrary nonconsequential command. This knowledge provides evidence that not all people follow Kohlberg’s stages. In addition, Kohlberg is implying that there are certain kinds of moral reasonings superior to the rest, that obeying authority is a lesser form of moral reasoning then doing as one wishes. The theory can be argued to have been built on his biased opinions of how morals should be reasoned. One theory that addresses these criticisms is the Moral Domain Theory developed by Elliot Turiel around this time. Turiel’s theory proposes similar ideas, that moral concepts begin in early childhood and develops through adulthood, but differs in the belief that the subdivisions coincide with one another and that the succession of the stages are not necessary. He believes that the three stages, or “domains” as he calls them, are divided into moral, societal, and psychological causes of morality. Despite Kohlberg’s criticisms and other theories proposed, his theory of moral development remains a popular explanation of how people judge right and wrong.

One main theorist that sought to explain morality was professor Lawrence Kohlberg. He hypothesized in the 1970’s that moral growth is the result of internal struggles between choices, restricted by the age of the individual. He claims that morality is developed in three stages with six subdivisions, and that throughout one’s lifetime, he or she progresses through the stages in an unfailing order. The first stage is the pre-conventional morality stage in which children transition from obedience in fear of punishment to acting out of self-interest. Children in this stage are only interested in actions that benefit his or herself. Preschoolers’ moral development, the obedience/ punishment stage, is based upon the desire to avoid punishment. They learn what is right following the negative responses given by a parental figure. Following preschool age, the motivation is more self-beneficial, and there is a shift from avoiding punishment to seeking rewards for one’s choices. The self-interest stage is characterized as school aged children securing the best benefit for oneself. After pre-conventional morality, conventional morality is developed. Conformity and Interpersonal Accord, the subdivision to follow the pre-conventional stages, shifts motivation to secure approval and maintain positive relationships. Morals are determined based on what will benefit one’s social standing. Next comes the Authority and Social Order subcategory that influences morals to become a reflection of rules given by an authority. Social order maintenance is the focus, so what is right is adjusted to include the entire society. Furthermore, the last stage post conventional morality holds moral decisions to a social contract and universal principles. With the social contract the arises during teen years, morally right and legally right are not always the same; morals are determined by what will benefit society and the individual in return. Once adulthood is reached, there is a chance that morality based on more than mutual benefit can be reached. Adults in this stage believe there are ethical principles that transcend those that provide immediate benefit to the world; their morals reflect on future consequences.

Across the globe, people are divided by their customs, languages, spirituality, and many more variations. Despite the differences, there are commonalities to be found, and those similarities come into play with the fact that, though they are different, they are still human. People, individually and collectively, have proven to house a sense of what is right and wrong, or morals through conscience, that connects all. Morality, as defined by Oxford Dictionary, is the “principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior”. It is the foundation for behavioral motivation of individuals and societies alike, but questions arise as to from where and how these morals develop. Several psychologists have attempted to solve the ‘where’ question. Harvard professor Lawrence Kohlberg is one. He believed that morality stems from a series of personality struggles certain age groups face. Another is the more recent Moral Foundations Theory that says morals are built from intuitive bases and developed thereafter. The two theories explain from where morals hypothetically come from, but they only provide an explanation as to from where; they do not address how the values cultivate afterwards. To address the how, one can analyze moral reasoning by looking at the biology of an individual, their cognitive processes, and the societal influence on decision making. By taking a biological, cognitive, and sociocultural stance, several explanations for the development and upkeep of morals arise when used in conjunction with Lawrence Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development and the Moral Foundations Theory.