Piaget’s Constructivist Theory of Cognitive Development: Piaget had a phrase that said “Assimilation and Accommodation lead to Adaptation.” Assimilation is when a person fits his or her external information in with what he or she already knows....
Haidt, J., & Joseph, C. (2007). The moral mind: How 5 sets of innate intuitions guide the development of many culture-specific virtues, and perhaps even modules. In P. Carruthers, S. Laurence & S. Stich (Eds.), The Innate Mind, Vol. 3 (pp. 367-391). New York: Oxford.
Answer the following questions about your own moral decision making in your discussion paper (using at least 500 words), after you have made your slide presentation on
(1.) Discuss your own moral decision making and how it relates to these stages.
(2.) Do you make moral decisions at a different stage now than you did at an earlier point in your life? Explain and provide an example of a moral decision you made at
an earlier point in your life.
(3.) Discuss a recent moral decision that you made and explain how your style of moral reasoning relates to Kohlberg’s stage theory of moral development.
Kohlberg’s Stages—Critical Thinking
Slide Presentation Rubric
-Quality content in slides and examples of Kohlberg’s stages of moral development
-Written Discussion- How personal moral decision making relates to Kohlberg’s theory
-Uses the recommended number of scholarly resources correctly cited in APA format (at least four)
-Creativity-(Color, media, photos, statistics, etc)
-Proper Spelling, Grammar, Capitalization, Punctuation
-Posts required # slides (15)
Kohlberg’s theory of moral development.
Make a power point presentation consisting of at least 15 slides explaining these stages and how your own style of moral reasoning relates to Kohlberg’s stages.
Several other interesting patterns emerged. Not surprisingly, being treated morally increased one’s happiness and being treated immorally decreased it. What is more intriguing is that the greatest increase in a sense of purpose and meaning in life came after reports of having acted morally oneself. This is consistent with previous work, and suggests that while our moment-to-moment happiness depends on (how we are treated by) others, our larger sense of purpose in life is our own doing. More good news, right?
How do they develop in to morally superior individuals capable of making the right decisions when it counts, placing conscience over self-interest or even what others would rather have us do?
Pluralism, on the other hand, improves explanation. S&G claim (p. 5) that MFT has limited predictive utility because foundations overlap and harm is the best predictor. This is an odd use of “predictive utility.” Contrast this with the real predictive utility shown in papers like Koleva et al. (2012), which found that sanctity scores greatly improved prediction of culture war attitudes, over and above Care/harm scores and ideology; or Waytz, Dungan, & Young (2013) predicting whistleblowing with loyalty and fairness, or Rottman et al. 2014 predicting judgments of suicide with sanctity over and above harm. None of these findings would be possible if researchers embraced Dyadic Morality and only measured beliefs about harm. Later (p. 13) the authors chide MFT for not asking about taxation, gun control, euthanasia, capital punishment, and environmentalism, but this is exactly what we have done, in Koleva et al. 2012, and what many others have done in their research demonstrating the utility of using multiple foundations to understand and to change political attitudes (e.g., Feinberg & Willer, 2013).
In this article, Professor Thomas sets forth a framework for understanding the moral development of military leaders, drawing inspiration from both the Ancient Roman's understanding of this issue as well as the research and writings of the preeminent scholar in the area of moral development: Dr.
It also offers a paradigm to understand one's own stage of moral development, consistent with the first - and perhaps most important Marine Corps Leadership Principle "Know Yourself and Seek Self-Improvement."
The patterns of correlations described in this paper are entirely consistent with MFT’s descriptive account of the domains, concerns, and intuitions involved in human morality. It would be shocking to me if the moral concerns about respect for authorities and traditions didn’t relate to RWA. In fact, the Graham et al. (in press) paper cited in this manuscript makes clear that both RWA and SDO were used as external validation criteria in the very development of the Moral Foundations Questionnaire. Use of these scales as validity criteria is no more a normative defense of authoritarianism than our use of the Disgust Sensitivity Scale is a normative defense of disgust sensitivity. (Further, the findings by Schnall, Pizarro, and others that fart sprays can increase the severity of moral judgments – which I take to be descriptive evidence for including Purity concerns in accounts of human morality – do not necessitate any normative endorsements or condemnations of flatulence.) The MFQ and MFT are attempting to measure and describe the full range of moral concerns people have – the good, the bad, and the heinous – which I see as a scientific step beyond previous treatments of morality (e.g. Kohlberg, Turiel) that only considered moral concerns with which the scientists normatively agreed.
The other article was written by the staff and research team at Lucile Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford in 2012 that addresses what cognitive development is and the progress of adolescence cognitive development.
As this passage makes clear, we expressed (in an uncharacteristically tentative and unconfident way) a normative view that is mostly in line with what the authors seem to profess (binding foundations are dangerous in modern society) but diverges in our allowing for the possibility that there might be some benefits, in theory, to making some use of the binding foundations. The authors could certainly disagree with this normative claim, and reply that modern society should make absolutely no use of these foundations. But the point here is that we were clearly distinguishing these normative wanderings from MFT’s descriptive account of human morality.