User:Meher093/sandbox

 Moral Cognition  Etymologically Moral is from Latin (moralis, from mos, mor- ‘custom’) and cognition is (late Middle English: from Latin cognitio(- ), and from cognoscere ‘get to know’). In the domain of psychology and cognitive neuroscience, It is termed as the study of brain’s involvement in judgments and decision-making processes that are based on morals. The ability to comprehend rationalizations and biases, are the basic components that it aims to target as a social science. Furthermore, it can be labelled as a mechanism that measures the potential implications of actions that are voluntarily performed after gauging the social and emotional factors involved.

Cognitive Development
Moral Cognition evolves over time through various stages of moral development. It occurs through environmental and genetical interplay at various stages of life, as Anastasi (1958) states "It is a continuum of indirectness", where possible hereditary factors influence the moral development in an individual. A combination of Fast automatic responses (such as emotional “gut feelings”) and slow controlled responses (such as reasoning and self-control) result in moral cognition. Plato and Kant are among the philosophers supporting the rational approach, whereas David Hume and Adam Smith are among the believers that moral reasoning is the result of emotional responses.

Cognitive Motivation
Another feature in moral cognition after moral development is cognitive motivation. However, it is not a singular construct, it signifies two detached yet linked aspects, where one indicates the internalisation of cognitive activity to comprehend reality without any other motive (the foundation of Piaget’s concepts of equilibrium, disequilibrium, and Equilibrium) and the other deals with the non-rational factors that are based on personal motivation to perform the behaviour and providing subsequent rationalisations for it.

Theoretical Approaches
The two most prominent names throughout history, in terms of contributions in the domain of morality, are of Jean Piaget and Lawrence Kohlberg. The theoretical framework of moral cognition and/or moral development is therefore very heavily reliant upon their work. Where Piaget laid the framework for theoretical basis of Moral development, Kohlberg provided the extensive empirical evidence. Piaget as the first psychologist proposed a theory namely theory of cognitive development, where he postulated the cognitive development of a child as a hierarchical process, that contains four stages which span from infancy to adolescence. Whereas, Kohlberg’s Five Stages of Moral Development are not age specific, but are also categorized. In his theory of moral development, morality is a flexible construct that evolves throughout the lifespan of an individual.

Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development
Lawrence Kohlberg (1958) essentially approved of Piaget's (1932) theory of moral development, however in order to further elaborate the construct of morality he performed a number of experiments to empirically establish his own theory. Incorporating Piaget’s storytelling technique, he provided people (primarily children) with moral dilemmas and assessed their behaviour in response to those dilemmas. The most renowned dilemma presented by Kohlberg’s (1958) amongst his stories, was Heinz dilemma.

Heinz Dilemma
According to this dilemma, a man named Heinz committed a crime in a difficult situation, where his wife was suffering from a kind of terminal cancer and the only drug that would provide cure was too expensive and he was not able to afford it, in response to the drug company’s refusal to sell the drug to Heinz for a cheaper price, he decided to steal it. After a series of questions asked, Kohlberg formulated his results from the responses received by the participants in reaction to Heinz behaviour.

Stages of Moral Development
Kohlberg’s theory of moral development comprises of three levels, further subdivided into two stages respectively, thus there are broadly six steps of moral development. The first level namely pre-conventional morality comprises of children till age nine, and it deals with the absence of an individual code of morality, instead, rules are shaped by adults, and the child obeys in order to avoid consequences. This level is further subdivided into Obedience and punishment orientation, where child avoids a behaviour in order to escape punishment, and individualism and exchange where a child realises the existence of more than one right answer and source of authority. The second level namely conventional morality mostly includes adolescents and sometimes adults, where the moral standards are internalized. The common customs of the group one belongs to, are followed and power of the authority is not doubted. This level is further subdivided into two stages namely Good Interpersonal Relationships and Maintaining the Social Order, where the first stage deals with the goodness of an individual or what one portrays in order to be regarded as a good person and the second features the aspect of guilt avoidance by following the law and upholding the order of the social construct. The third and final level of moral development called post conventional morality is a stage that very few ever reach, according to Kohlberg (1958). In this stage of moral development, an individual is evolved to form personal views about morals and justice, whereas reason is not only dependant on social requirement but also upon personal principles. This level is further divided into two stages namely social contract and individual rights and universal principles. The first stage elaborates the child/individual's ability to access the utility and subsequent impracticality of rules, where they might exist for the greater good but are often times not in the best interest for certain situations. The last and final stage of the theory of moral development addresses individual's ability to formulate their own rules which may or may not be in accordance with the rules of law. These self formulated principles apply to all the individuals without discrimination.

Limitations of the Theory
Some of the basic limitation of the Theory of Moral Development are listed which became the grounds for its lack of broader applicability. The dilemmas were virtual, hence measuring an individual’s reaction based on the information provided was very subjective. There is the additional concern of biased nature of the sampling, as in Kohlberg's studies, the participants were predominantly male, therefore the results are not generally applicable. Kohlberg's methodology of research is also frequently criticized for its cross-sectional nature, as opposed to being longitudinal. Subsequently, efforts were made by Colby et al. (1983) to address this concern, where 58 original participants from Kohlberg's study were tested over the time span of roughly 27 years, and support for Kohlberg's theory was established.

Egocentrism
Egocentrism is defined as an individual's failure to put anyone else's needs prior to their own because they are incapable of differentiating between self and others. It is a primary construct in Piaget’s theory and is also emphasised by Kohlberg and Colby (1987). Gibb’s theory in relation to the development of morals, also includes constructs such as egocentrism. Gibbs greatly employs Piagetian concepts, however marginally alters the terminology of the construct. For instance, early childhood superficiality is Gibbs’ interpretation of the concept of Egocentrism by Piaget.

Cultural Factors
Cultural differences exist with respect to moral cognition where behaviours that encourage group cohesion and seamless interactions between individuals as the preliminary steps to morality are dependent on diverse aspects. Nevertheless, the basic codes of ethics amongst most cultures are mainly similar Prosocial behaviours are generally termed as a universal construct, but various studies have been conducted to underline the cultural factors that attribute to the multiple facets that contribute to social conducts. The limited number of cross-cultural studies conducted to additionally stress this aspect of moral cognition, suggest that emotional as well as rational aspects are at play while combining cultural beliefs for ethical behaviour.

Moral disengagement
Moral disengagement is the rationalization provided by an individual for his/her actions, pertaining to the claim that one is not subjected to, or dependant upon ethical standards. Bandura (2002) attributed this mechanism as a negotiator between an individual's actual conduct and the principle that the individual relates to. He also termed it as a "partial gap" between the idea of the desired moral behaviour and the actual conducts.

Related Topics

 * Moral reasoning
 * moral intuitions
 * Moral foundations theory
 * Altruism