Moral Development

A Psychological Study of Moral Growth from Childhood to Adolescence

William Kay

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN: 9781138724648
• eBook ISBN: 9781351754675
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: Education General
• Index: Psychology

Although the work of Piaget dealt with the intellectual development of children, and that of Goldman with a child's religious thought, there had hitherto been no comparable book on child morality to complete the developmental picture of the time. Originally published in 1968 William Kay's book was designed to fill this gap, for he offers a complete description of the moral growth of children from infancy to adolescence.

Dr Kay was writing specifically for students and practising teachers and carefully avoids specialist jargon where ordinary terms suffice. He concludes that the findings of research into attitude formation and change could provide teachers with those techniques to help their pupils become morally mature members of society. His book contains a valuable analysis of the development of ideas concerning moral growth, and is a bold contribution to the problems of moral education.

CHAPTER 1

THE NATURE OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

INTRODUCTION

The evidence supplied by contemporary research into children’s morality makes it clear that one can speak confidently of moral development. This is not an entirely original conclusion to reach. In normal social relationships we come to expect different kinds of moral conduct from infants as distinct from adolescents and our behaviour towards both is modified accordingly. It requires no tedious and sophisticated controlled experiment to confirm this. Memories from our own childhood and observations of the children about us every day endorse this conclusion.

Some may cynically suggest that this is what most research of this kind does anyway. It provides massive and unnecessary evidence for accepting what we already know. But even if this is true, such work is still of value. Teachers can teach with greater confidence and certainty if their basic assumptions are confirmed by empirical evidence. In moral education they can do this because the research not only confirms that moral development takes place; it also indicates the sequence and character of the different stages in this process, and furthermore describes the kind of moral conduct that can be expected at each level.

It is true that different research projects have produced varying conclusions, yet in the main they all agree on essentials. Thus parents and educators can accept that children develop morally, just as they develop intellectually, spiritually and physically.

It is from this point onwards that disagreements multiply; and those who are familiar with the work of Isaacs and Piaget¹ will know just what complexities of argument and theory are concealed by such a simple statement. However, the average teacher is well acquainted with theories of development although he may be unfamiliar with the technical details. Common sense and experience have provided him with this information. It is hoped, therefore, that a brief discussion of fundamentals may prompt teachers and students to re-read the masters of this subject and assess what these have to say against their own practical knowledge of children.

The one certain fact about our pupils is that they will grow. Teachers may sometimes doubt this, when a year of hard academic work seems to have little effect. Parents, however, have no doubt about this as many a mother sadly surveying outgrown clothes will testify. But children do not only grow out of clothes, they also grow out of knowledge. As they grow, children learn, and possibly the most fundamental educational question being asked today is, ‘What is the relationship between learning and growth?’ But this presupposes a prior question, ‘How exactly are we to understand the nature of human development?’

THE NATURE OF GROWTH

In one sense this is a chapter which the reader could well have written himself. Indeed, it may be a useful experiment at this point, if, instead of reading further, he made a list of the different ways in which things grow or develop, and then attempted to classify the different types of growth contained in that list.

If this were done, it would soon be apparent that there are various kinds of development which can be analysed in at least four different ways.

Firstly, one may note that things grow either qualitatively or quantitatively.

Secondly, they fall into two groups; those which develop by a slow, uniform transition from lower to higher levels, and those which grow by passing through critical points, each of which marks the end of one stage and the beginning of another.

Thirdly, development may either follow a pre-determined course or appear to be haphazard.

Finally, some growth appears to be almost entirely a result of the genetic heritage, while in other aspects it is clear that the environment has played the major role as agent of this development. These four distinctions can now be examined in more detail to throw light on the general problem of human growth.

QUALITY OR QUANTITY¹

In early times, if an outstanding warrior was killed in battle it was the general practice of those who survived to pay their respects to the slain hero by filing past his corpse. This of course, was all bound up with magical ritual practices and it may be for reasons of this kind that some earth was strewn on the body. The act of casting earth or rock upon the corpse meant that a mound grew. This resulted from the simple addition of more and more material of the same kind making the mound larger and larger. It is believed that in this way the first tumulus or burial mound was made.

In course of time this pile of stones was cemented to prevent animals from desecrating the corpse and robbers from stealing the burial armour. However it may have happened, what is clear is that out of these tumuli grew the pyramid tombs of the Egyptians. Yet despite the increased architectural sophistication of the late pyramids one still finds growth characterized by simple addition. The complexity of the final product must not blind one to this fact. Even the fabulously beautiful Taj Mahal is merely a tomb which grew up in this way.

Now there is another kind of growth which is equally familiar to us. Instead of starting with a single stone we may begin with one egg of frog spawn. As more eggs are laid it looks as though here again is an example of quantitative development. Indeed this is so, but only until the female has finished laying. When all the eggs are laid this kind of growth stops. When it does, another kind begins. Each individual egg then develops into a tadpole, and each tadpole develops into a frog. Here one finds three entirely different stages. Each stage of the frog’s growth is so distinct that it demands different foods and environments.

This is the first difference to be noted in human development. Isaacs argued that intellectual growth was characterized merely by the addition of more mental equipment and by a growing complexity of thought. The only difference between the thinking of an infant and an adolescent was the quantity of knowledge possessed, and the degree to which knowledge and concepts were inter-related.

On the other hand, Piaget says that with the growth of knowledge and conceptual understanding one has a pattern of development which can be divided into clear, qualitatively distinct stages. Just as one can see immediately that there is an obvious qualitative difference between an egg of frog spawn and an adult frog, so by careful observation one can see equally clearly that the thinking of an infant is qualitatively different from that of an adult.

This analogy highlights one of the differences between the theories of Isaacs and Piaget. Isaacs’ theory can best be understood in terms of the growth of a single stone into a masterpiece of architecture. Piaget is best understood in terms of the emergence of a frog from an egg. Isaacs argued that different stages of human development are marked by a difference of degree. Piaget believed that they were marked by a difference in kind.

This, of course, is a very elementary attempt to disclose one of the fundamental differences, between the conclusions of both schools of developmental psychology. It is therefore imperfect and thus inadequate. As will be shown later, both theories are of value and in one sense augment each other, but for the moment this analysis highlights one difference between the various theories concerning human growth.

SLOW TRANSITION OR CRITICAL POINTS

Clearly there is a further way in which these two types of growth can be distinguished. In one the development is gradual and consistent. There may appear to be phases of rapid development, but these are only distinct in that the process of quantitative growth is speeded up at certain stages. In the terms of our former analogy, the builders just add more material to the foundation to produce even the most complex architecture. They may work quickly on some days and slowly on others, but this does not affect the way in which the building develops. But in the other process there are critical points which separate qualitatively different stages.

To underline this distinction one may use the analogy of the earth and its satellite moon. Obviously, there is a difference in size, but the most fundamental difference between them is that earth is able to support living matter while the moon apparently cannot. How does this come about?

It is generally supposed that the earth supports life because it can hold an atmosphere. It holds this atmosphere by the gravitational pull which in turn depends on its weight. The moon, on the other hand, cannot support life because it has insufficient mass to hold an atmosphere. Clearly there must be a point midway between these two sizes which is critical. It is that point at which a celestial body is sufficiently large to retain an atmosphere. Anything slightly larger than this can therefore support life; anything just slightly smaller cannot. Thus, although it can be said that they are distinguished by the fact that one is x tons heavier than the other, it is much more true to say that there is a critical point which divides two fundamentally different astronomical bodies.

Here again, one may see this distinction in the work of Isaacs and Piaget. The former says of children’s thought: ‘It moves continuously on, developing and growing as their practical and social situations change and develop from moment to moment’.¹ Piaget, however, will accept none of this. He argues that there are two critical points in the development of each normal child. Firstly, one where he is suddenly able to see things from another person’s point of view; and secondly where he is equally suddenly able to manipulate abstract ideas.

The importance of this for the teacher cannot be over-emphasized. Both are crucial experiences in the lives of his pupils and both occur at critical moments in their school careers. For most children, the first appears as they move into the junior school and the second when they have entered the secondary school.

SEQUENTIAL OR HAPHAZARD

Then there is a third way in which these forms of growth can be distinguished. The course of development can be either predetermined or unexpected. It may be sequential or it may just be haphazard. Here a useful analogy can be found by comparing the growth of a human body with the development of a piece of human sculpture. The fully mature, human body has had to pass through a series of pre-determined stages before emerging. The sculptor, however, can act upon his material in a haphazard way. He may, for example, decide to begin by roughly hewing the block of stone and then perfecting the facial features, or the torso, or the limbs. It is entirely up to him.

This is an extremely important distinction. According to Susan Isaacs, the course of one’s intellectual development can be as much at the mercy of circumstances as is the stone before the sculptor. Surrounded by conversation and books of a high order, children who will benefit from these experiences may make inordinate intellectual advances and proceed to attain a level of conceptual understanding normally only expected in an adolescent. It seems likely therefore, that one may cultivate a particular skill or aptitude in a child just as a sculptor may concentrate on one aspect of his work.

Piaget will not agree that there is any truth in this. Children must grow through all the pre-adult stages, and pass through them in a fixed sequence before attaining intellectual maturity. To do otherwise is to court disaster. Not only will children develop little more than verbal facility, but this forcing of their growth can actually hinder their natural development. They can, of course, have their growth rate accelerated, yet, says Piaget, no stage can be omitted or misplaced in the growth of a child.

ENVIRONMENT OR HEREDITY

This consideration leads naturally to the final way of distinguishing between these theories. The analogy of the sculptor hints at it. It is not entirely true to say that the material is at the mercy of the sculptor. The material itself can partly determine what happens. There is a classic case of this known to many school children. Michelangelo was given a piece of rock which no sculptor wanted because of its shape and grain. Seeing the possibilities in the material he carved a masterpiece—the young David casting a stone from his sling. Here the nature of the material partly determined its development.

So we reach the final question. Does growth depend upon heredity or environment; upon nature or nurture? Is the predominant factor genetic or experiential?

A final illustration can help to sharpen the distinction in this case. One may for example, compare a diamond in a ring with a crystal in a chemical solution. The diamond is shaped by the external application of grinding and cutting tools. This must be done within the limits of its structure but the decisive influence is external to it. The crystal however, takes its shape under the direction of strict physical laws. Its own nature determines its growth. The environment is necessary but it is not the decisive factor.

For Isaacs a child is like a rough diamond. It must be placed in the hands of a skilled craftsman, then ground, polished and set so that the end result is a fully formed human being. For Piaget on the other hand, a child is more like a crystal. It grows according to the laws of its nature. Clearly it must have a favourable environment or growth will be prevented, but the environment merely facilitates that growth, it does not determine its direction. For this reason, Piaget’s theories are often referred to as genetic in character.

Before proceeding to argue that these apparently irreconcilable theories can be shown to augment each other, it is necessary to pause at this point, for the discussion now becomes extremely relevant for moral education. Walter, for example, constantly asks the question, ‘Are morals inherited?’ Hitherto it has been tacitly assumed that they were not. Each individual member of the human race has had to learn how to behave morally. The variety of ethical norms found in works of comparative anthropology can be accepted as evidence for this assumption being well founded.

Such a complacent view has recently been subject to question by a number of facts emerging from medical...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• FOREWORD
• AUTHOR’S PREFACE
• PREFACE TO THIS REVISED EDITION
• INTRODUCTION
• 1. THE NATURE OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
• 2. RESEARCH RELATING TO MORAL DEVELOPMENT
• 3. THE THEORY OF RECAPITULATION
• 4. A SUGGESTED ANALYSIS OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT
• 5. MORAL DEVELOPMENT IN TERMS OF CHANGING SANCTIONS
• 6. THE DEVELOPMENT OF MORAL JUDGMENT—PIAGET
• 7. MORAL JUDGMENT IN ADOLESCENCE
• 8. PSYCHO-SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
• 9. THE ATTITUDINAL MODEL OF MORALITY
• 10. MORAL EDUCATION
• INDEX