Moral Development Learning Theory

Introduction Theories of moral development are important for understanding how children grow and learn to understand the difference between right and wrong. This paper will discuss three theories of moral development: Jean Piaget’s Theory of Moral Development, Lawrence Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development, and Elliot Turiel’s Moral Domain Theory. Each theory will be discussed in detail, focusing on the assumptions each theory makes about morality as well as their implications for child development. Jean Piaget's Theory of Moral Development Jean Piaget's theory of moral development is based on his cognitive developmental theory which suggests that human beings progress through various stages that represent different levels of intellectual ability (Piaget 1932). His theory states that children progress from an initial state where they cannot distinguish between right or wrong , to a stage where they can make judgments based upon a set of rules provided by adult authority figures . The key assumption behind this approach is that children are naturally inclined towards constructing their own sense morality which gradually becomes more sophisticated as they age . In terms practical implications , this means adults should provide enough guidance so as ensure children understand what constitutes acceptable behaviour without being too overbearing . For example , rather than simply telling them not do something without explanation it may be beneficial explain why you believe it is wrong thereby helping them arrive at an informed decision themselves next time round .. Moreover , according Piaget ‘punishment’ should only be used sparingly since it does not encourage long term positive change but rather merely instils fear into child thus preventing any meaningful learning from taking place . Instead he proposed using logical reasoning or rewards/praise in order to reinforce desired behaviours instead if possible .. Lawrence Kohlberg's Theory Of Moral Development Lawrence Kohlberg’s first began developing his influential three-level model back 1959 after conducting interviews with young boys aged 10 – 16 ; however he would later refine these ideas further during the years leading up until 1983 when published his final version (Kohlberg 1984) .. His approach largely focused upon understanding how individuals think about issues related morality i.e., what drives our decisions and why we choose certain courses action over others etc.. He identified six distinct stages which generally progressed from pre-conventional reasoning (which was seen as at least partially egocentric ) all way through post-conventional reasoning whereby one could be said have developed their own autonomous code conduct (Kohlberg 1971) .. Implications wise ... this type research strongly indicates need for adults help facilitate learning opportunities which can hone one’s capacity for higher level thinking such those required reach post conventional stage e.g., engaging in debates/dialogues around ethical topics or even providing examples relevant real world scenarios where individual must take responsibility their own actions etc.. Additionally , it also suggests importance emotional intelligence when developing relationships with others since empathy essential component when considering another person point view before making judgement calls .. Finally , due its emphasis upon free will self determination - the results obtained through Kohlberg ‘research suggest there can never truly universal standard morals since opinions vary greatly depending upon lifestyle choices personal beliefs etc.. Consequently - Kellogg felt strongly about allowing individuals autonomy express themselves freely so long as doing so did not harm anyone else in process . Elliot Turiel 's Morality Domain Theory Elliott Turiel proposed a groundbreaking new concept 1983 known today as “moral domain theory" which seeks explain differences between social conventions customs versus true ‘right or wrong' situations within any given context (Turiel 1998).. His central premise was that there were two distinct types knowledge; namely descriptive codes concerned with displaying accepted modes behaviour based upon norms established by society itself i.e., politeness etiquette etc.. And prescriptive codes often referred universal principles like reciprocity fairness justice etc.. As result - all cultures possess both elements but rely heavily latter when making judgements regarding difficult ethical dilemmas .... This has several interesting implications : Firstly - it highlights role culture plays shaping one’s perception morals i.e., values systems become embedded through repetition exposure thus influencing people whether they are aware doing so or not ... It also raises questions surrounding subjectivity language use e.g., words such might mean different things different cultures - hence why relying strictly descriptive knowledge inadequate under certain circumstances ... Furthermore -- despite potential cultural differences emerging from above mentioned factors I believe underlying principle remains same regardless situation i.e., treating others way would want treated yourself provides sense unity cohesion amongst mankind regardless background race gender religion nationality etc... Lastly -- teaching young children appreciate diversity importance early life goes long way fostering better global citizens future especially once combined with teachings derived from either previous two theories discussed earlier ....