A moral compass is the ability to judge between wrong and right. Young children’s behaviours are often directed by adults through learning by consequences or observing others. This aids their ability to understand what is good and bad behaviour in a social context. However, how much of their ability to judge whether actions are ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ is due to their environment, or is this an innate ability? In this essay I will explore the idea of morality to see if it is more than just ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. I will also examine empirical evidence to explore if a moral compass is innate in children.
Morality is a concept based on empathy. Gert and Gert (2002) suggest that there are two types. The first is known as ‘descriptive morality’. This type refers to the idea that social groups create ideals of behaviours. If an individual adheres to the social ideals of behaviour, they are accepted. The other type is ‘normative morality’, which operates at an individual level. This type is present in everyone, and is applied to moral dilemmas, regardless of contradicting social rules. Gert and Gert’s (2002) findings imply that morality isn’t a black or white concept, rather, a complex view that requires personal and social appreciations. Furthermore, the normative morality concept may suggest that morality is innate and thus present within individuals. This is because it may cause individuals to break conventional rules which could lead condemnation by society.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
To further support the idea of morality being innate, a study by Warneken and Tomasello found that twenty-four 18-month-old infants can present altruistic behaviours, without any need for a beneficial consequence such as praise or reward. The study consisted of five experimental tasks which included helping the experimenter with out-of-reach objects or stacking books that had fallen. The experimenter did not in any trials indicate verbally that help was needed. Five control tasks were also present. The results showed that 22 out of the 24 infants helped the experimenter with at least one task, and 84% of the infants’ helpful action was within a ten second time period. Infants as young as 18 months aren’t old enough to fully understand verbal language or to be exposed to many moral dilemmas. The findings support the idea that a moral compass is present from birth, as infants in the study have not been taught the concept of helping others. Despite this, they were able to recognise when an individual needed help. These behaviours also resemble Gert and Gert’s concept of ‘normative morality’ as they weren’t actions that the infants believed were necessary by social standards, but a personal feeling of judging what the ‘right’ thing to do was. They were also willing to do so regardless of the absence of a reward. Therefore, as altruistic helping can be seen in children as young as 18 months, a moral sense must be innate. This also supports the idea that children do have a moral compass. On the other hand, it is hard to test and assess moral understanding in new-born babies as they are verbally and physically limited to respond to any situation. This makes it hard to substantiate innate morality.
In contrast, the environment does play a role in understanding what behaviours are acceptable or not. For example, as soon as children go to educational settings, they learn about rules and understand that there are consequences for unacceptable behaviours. Similarly, through praise and rewards, children learn what is acceptable, allowing them to construct their beliefs on what is ultimately ‘wrong’ or ‘right’ in their world. Skinner further supports this idea that moral judgement is acquired through the environment, much like other behaviours are. This claim contradicts the notion that infants have prior knowledge or innate sense of morality.
Another key figure in this view is Piaget. He believed that “moral knowledge is a continual process of experience” (Killen & Smetana, 2015, p. 705). Piaget believed that there were two states to acquiring an individual’s moral sense. The first state is known as the ‘Autonomous State’, and occurs in older children, above the ages of seven. This is when they become a moral subjectivist and construct their own idea of morality. The second is known as the ‘Heteronomous State’. This is applied to younger children, under the ages of seven years. In this state, children make their judgements on what is moral or not from the extent of damage caused in a situation. This can be through infants watching peers in a preschool setting enabling them to understand morality. Piaget specifically highlighted the importance of peer interaction in acquiring a moral sense. Peers have a huge influence on behaviour, as often children want to fit into a group and conform to the social standard. In fact, Bloom put forward the idea of a moral circle (as cited in Laham, 2008). This idea suggests that human contact widens an individual’s social circle. From this, more exposure to moral dilemmas can take place, allowing a moral circle to expand. Even though this idea shows that social relationships have an influence on how an infant develops their own sense of morality, there is not enough research regarding the idea of a moral circle. Does this lack of empirical evidence suggest that the environment does not have a role in the development of moral understanding?
Kohlberg (1985) suggested a stage theory to demonstrate how morality develops in an infant into adulthood. He tested children using moral dilemmas in order to see how children respond. This enabled him to see at what ages they develop a sense of morality. From this study, he produced three main levels. The first level of moral reasoning; Preconventional Morality, occurrs in children under the ages of eleven years. Here we find that punishments are what the child tries to avoid, and rewards are their goal. Therefore, external values are what is important to children at this stage. The next level is known as Conventional Morality. In this stage, children’s behaviours are only produced to be obedient to the law. This level shows how the conventional rules of society guide their understanding of morality, and at this stage morality is ultimately either ‘wrong or ‘right’. The last level is Post-Conventional Morality. According to Kohlberg, this occurs in individuals after the age of twenty years old and is where they know the difference between moral and legal rights. All these levels show how Kohlberg’s theory of moral development stemmed from an idea that morality is due to the environment. It also shows that children do have a moral compass which develops through childhood. Conventional rules are the main driving force in allowing children to understand what is immoral or moral in their society. From this, they are then able to construct their own ideas of morality, suggesting that it is something that develops over time. This idea does make logical sense as conventional rules do help shape an understanding of what is acceptable. However, the main critique of Kohlberg’s theory is that he based his idea on one sample of children from a western society. Does this allow his assumption to be culturally universal, or is it just a western ideal of what justice is? Similarly, his sample consisted of only boys, meaning that the generalisation of his theory can’t be made to all humans. Therefore, because we can’t truly say that a moral compass develops in all individuals in the same way, we can’t truly know if it is something developed due to external interaction at all.
In conclusion, I believe that morality in children is affected by societal factors. Laws enable children to put together how the world works, as often they are unable to know this immediately from birth. This provides a basic sense of morality. However, I do believe that part of a moral sense is innate as well. As discussed earlier, 18-month-old children were able to sense when someone needed help. They were able to acknowledge that ignoring their distress was an immoral thing to do and didn’t require any form of punishment or reward to encourage them. This shows that children do have a moral compass, as they have that specific ability to judge right from wrong. Also, Kohlberg’s theory was a key theory in moral development and had many critiques. The most important fact being that it was based largely on a western society, so how can we universally state that morality is developed in the same way across all cultures. Therefore, I think that morality is an innate quality that can be shaped and developed by environmental factors. This allows their innate moral compass to become more refined as the individual develops and grasps an understanding of the world.
Stuck on your essay?
