The Moral Person: How Do We Become Moral Beings?

The Moral Person: How Do We Become Moral Beings?

Author: Michelle Skalman Translator: Mohammad Reza Jahangirzadeh Source: Pegah-e Hozeh Magazine / 16 November 2008 / No. 243

A child's capacity for developing empathy, moral attachments, and moral principles emerges between the ages of two and four, shortly after gaining independence in the social world (Burleson, 1982). The blossoming of these capacities is influenced by the child's social environment, including the ways in which parents, peers, and significant others interact with and teach them. In other words, during the early years of life, children are spontaneously sensitive to moral influences and instructions[1]. These sensitivities can be divided into the three domains we have discussed. Thus, when a parent says, "Think about how you would feel if someone did that to you," they are drawing upon the child's capacities for empathy. When parents invoke the Golden Rule or explain that "everyone deserves to be treated fairly," they are engaging the capacity for forming moral principles. And when parents frown and tell their child, "I am disappointed when you treat others this way," or "This is not how your family behaves," they are employing the child's capacity for moral attachment.

Theorists have long debated whether morality is taught. Some believe that morality must be instilled through explicit demands and declarations of right and wrong (Bennett, 1993), while others have argued that the best way to transmit morality is to raise children in an atmosphere where adults express their own moral interests and provide moral models for children (Bryan and Walbek, 1970). According to the "moral motivation" framework, both approaches are valuable, and both have a place in each of the three moral domains.

Cultivating Morality Through Empathy

An important technique for cultivating empathy is directly advising children to put themselves in others' shoes (Barnett, Howard, King, & Dino, 1980; Hughes, Tingle, & Sawin, 1981; Krevans & Gibbs, 1996). Children must learn the impact of their behavior on others; this can be done with simple reminders such as "Think about how you would feel" or "Remember a time when you were treated this way."

When reminders are insufficient, empathy can be strengthened by providing the child with more information about others, particularly information about their efforts and difficulties, and by having the child imagine or even role-play that person's situation (Chandler, 1973; Iannotti, 1978).

Empathy begins with awareness of others' feelings. One way to teach about feelings is to incorporate discussions of emotions, including the parents' own emotions and their causes, into everyday conversations (Feshbach, 1983). Children focus on the feelings of others, and recognizing similarities between themselves and others increases the likelihood of empathy (Houston, 1990; Krebs, 1975). It is also helpful for parents to do the following: accept and praise children's compassionate feelings, draw attention to compassionate people in the community and encourage them, and talk about their own acts of compassion. Telling stories about kind heroes, fictional or real, famous or unknown, also helps convey the message that empathizing with others is good (see Skalman and Mehler, 1994, Chapter 3).

Empathy leads to a child's desire to help others or alleviate their pain and suffering. But children are often confused about how to help others. In many cases, they feel shy or insecure about helping others or comforting them when needed. Encouragement and instructions from educators about when and how to help others can provide them with the necessary knowledge to move from feeling compassion for others to doing what is in their best interest (Staub, 1971).

Cultivating Morality Through Attachments

Researchers (Grazyna Kochanska, Aksan, & Koenig, 1995) and (Suzanne Landreville et al., 1971) found in the course of their studies that parents who were sensitive, receptive, and cooperative in spirit with their children, and who treated them in a warm and affectionate manner, had children with the highest sense of cooperation. These children, even before the age of 2, showed signs of internal control and would remind themselves of their parents' instructions.

Children are far more likely to submit to the rules or reprimands of encouraging and receptive individuals than to those who are usually strict and restrictive. The goal of moral education is not to raise an obedient child, but to raise a child with a sense of cooperation, and the best way to raise such a child is through parents who themselves have a cooperative spirit. Moral instructions often involve asking the child to stop or delay things they enjoy; a task that is not always easy for them. However, this task becomes much simpler if they trust their parents and believe that they genuinely want to help their children.

Furthermore, parents foster internalization[2] by providing clear, firm rules and logical reasons (Clarke et al., 1977; Saunders & Dodds, 1982). It is much easier for a child to understand the instruction "take turns with the toys" than "share with each other." When parents provide reasons for their rules, for example, saying, "Everyone should have an equal chance to have fun," they teach the child the purpose and spirit of the law. Only by understanding the reasons behind a rule can a child transfer moral lessons to new situations and prepare to resist immoral impulses.

Research (Zahn-Waxler et al., 1979) shows that punishment does not correlate with high altruism in children, and "deprivation without explanation" is detrimental to the development of altruism. On the other hand, greater internalization is associated with the expression of emotional displeasure or dissatisfaction in cases of moral rule violations (Radke-Yarrow & Zahn-Waxler, 1984).

Since internalization requires self-talk, educators can teach children direct methods of self-talk in difficult situations. For example, if parents realize their child is likely to pick on a classmate after having bad luck in a game, they can help the child talk to themselves; for instance, "It's not right to make someone else feel bad just to make myself feel better." In fact, parents can provide specific instructions regarding many moral skills, such as conflict resolution, fair play, constructive criticism, and appropriate conduct.

Other important techniques include: the good behavior assignment, in which an adolescent must choose and perform a good deed that benefits someone; and positive attribution, in which a child who has done a good deed is told they are a kind-hearted and caring person (Jensen & Moore, 1977; Toner, Moore, & Emmons, 1980). Most parenting guidebooks recommend criticizing the child's behavior, not the child themselves, when they misbehave. Of course, research shows that when a child is kind and fair, praising both the act and the child is effective (Schulman & Mekler, 1994, Chapter 2).

Fostering Morality Through Moral Principles

Through inspirational[3] and practical[4] dialogues, one can help the child establish personal standards. For example, moral ideals can be instilled by portraying a more humane and just world, making the child aware that their behaviors can contribute to the realization or undermining of these ideals. Most children want to overcome badness, and are therefore easily influenced by the image of a better family, a better community, and a better world.

Practical messages are designed to prompt children to pay attention to and reflect on the long-term effects of their behavior—that is, that their choices will, willy-nilly, lead to valuable outcomes in the future (Levit, Weber, Clark, & McDonnell, 1985). Likewise, by reminding them of times when helping others made them feel good, one can increase the likelihood of their accepting the principle of helping those in need.

A technique that incorporates inspirational and practical messages draws on adolescents' natural eagerness to integrate their views about "the good." As Socrates and other moral philosophers long ago expressed, questions such as "What is the good life?" and "What is worth dying for?" hold a magical appeal for young people. The quest for answers through dialogue, study, or personal reflection can be transformative, prompting adolescents to think about moving toward moral commitment and a defined moral identity.

Discussions can also encompass parents' moral confusions (e.g., "I'm not sure whether, when I help homeless people on the street, I am actually helping them or betraying them") and children's moral dilemmas (e.g., trying to satisfy the conflicting demands of friends).

Although reasoning can help individuals discover their true values and the degree to which their behaviors align with those values, morality is ultimately never based on reasoning alone. One may not be able to prove that the moral life is the best option, nor can one derive an "ought" from an "is."

In fact, a moral disposition is more akin to a taste or an aesthetic response than it is the product of inference and deduction. A child does not reason their way into detesting cruelty, or liking goodness, or feeling empathy for the pain and suffering of others, or being stirred by glorious ideals—just as they do not reason their way into disliking spinach and liking ice cream; these all arise from biological predispositions and personal temperament. One could say that the goal of moral education is to make kindness and justice palatable.

Whether moral education rests on empathy, belonging, or moral principles, it is an ongoing process, and morality is not a quality that a person possesses or lacks in a universal and permanent way (Hartshorne & May, 1930). Although longitudinal evidence indicates consistency in "prosocial helping disposition"[5] from early childhood to adulthood (Eisenberg et al., 1999), few of us, whether children or adults, always act rightly, and most of us perform better in some domains than others (like the person who deceives their spouse but not their colleague). Moreover, new temptations and moral confusions are constantly emerging; this makes it essential to help the child build a moral identity as someone who wants to be moral and who resolves to do better after moral lapses.

Maintaining a positive moral identity is easier when there is sufficient optimism and hope for reform. Children cultivate optimism and hope in various ways (Seligman, 1995; Snyder, 2000). One method of fostering these qualities in the moral domain is to inform adolescents of the successes of moral individuals, especially when they unite with one another. Today, telling stories about people who make the world a better place is particularly important, because in the "Information Age" even young children hear a great deal about cruelty and injustice, which contributes to the spread of pessimism and despair from an early age (Schulman & Mekler, 1994, Chapter 4).

Schools can play a role in creating ideals. For example, they can convey to students the meaning that the best human civilization is realized in the atmosphere of a true moral society, where every individual can expect kindness and fair treatment. Schools can incorporate more ethical themes into their curricula. For instance, in addition to teaching history as a series of fateful events and the role of important individuals in their occurrence, one can also include the analysis of related ethical issues and how important figures confronted these events (for a comprehensive moral education program in schools, see Schalman, 1995).

Religion and Morality

All religions utilize the three moral domains (empathy, belonging, and moral principles), but some emphasize one domain more than others. For example, Judaism emphasizes personal standards or moral principles more, and has done extensive work on how to apply these principles in daily life. The Torah presents moral principles; and the Talmud contains reasoned discussions on how to realize these principles.

Christianity emphasizes belonging and connection; morality arises primarily from the human connection with Christ. Christ is ever-present, and human responsibility toward others is mediated by His presence. Others are good for the sake of Christ.

Hinduism, as evident in the following passage from their sacred text, emphasizes empathetic bonds more: "Just as one's own life is dear to oneself, so too is the life of all beings dear and respected. Good people show compassion toward all beings, for all are like them."

Of course, religions also motivate good behavior by threatening believers with divine wrath and eternal damnation. But doing good to avoid punishment stems from self-interest, not from considering the interests of others. Therefore, such behaviors cannot be considered morally motivated actions.

In almost all cultures, religion has always been one of the inspiring sources of morality. Of course, it has also been a source of cruelty and strife. Gandhi was influenced by his religious beliefs. His assassin was also influenced by his convictions. Religions teach the importance of kindness and justice, but sometimes they also propagate the idea that the destruction of infidels is a virtue. History recounts numerous atrocities committed in the name of true morality. Can lessons be learned from these events?

Moral Pitfalls

There is truth in the proverb "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Very bad deeds have been done by people who believed they were acting rightly. There are at least three reasons: delegating moral judgment to others, deeming others undesirable, and suppressing bad thoughts.

Delegating Moral Judgment to Others

We delegate moral judgment to others because we believe they have special knowledge of right and wrong, and we can feel righteous by following their orders, even when they tell us to sacrifice thousands of people (as happened in the Crusades and many holy wars before and after them). Absolving oneself of moral responsibility also occurs in civil institutions, especially when "obedience to superiors"[6] is considered a virtue. Soldiers are usually taught that "the army has no 'why'!". This situation allows them to justify horrific cruelties merely by stating, "I was just following orders."

Deeming Others Undesirable

When others are seen as inherently contemptible and undesirable, they can be self-righteously isolated, enslaved, or even annihilated. The moral rules of our group do not apply to inherently undesirable elements. Jews, Gypsies, Blacks, and homosexuals have been among the perennial victims of these moral exclusions, but most races, religions, nationalities, class groups, and ethnicities have been subject to vilification and persecution in parts of history.

The solution to this problem is to raise children who believe that no human being lacks human dignity, no one is inherently contemptible or undesirable, and no person, however different, falls outside the boundaries of morality.

Suppressing Bad Thoughts

So-called bad thoughts, such as those that accompany anger and envy, are common and natural. But people who believe that "a bad thought is as undesirable as a bad deed" often, in order to maintain their positive self-concept, mislabel or deny these unwanted thoughts (a psychologist might consider their anger unconscious). This leads to serious problems in self-regulation. For example, anger, whether recognized or remaining unrecognized, creates an appetite for aggression. But before we can sever the link between anger and aggression, we must first recognize that we are experiencing anger. Only then can we tell ourselves, "I am angry now, so I must be careful about my behavior toward this person." Mislabeling occurs less often when we learn to judge our morality based on what we do, not on what we think.

Moral Motives versus Antisocial Motives

Theorists have employed various factors to explain antisocial behavior, including antisocial instincts and drives; neurological, genetic, and hormonal disorders; a disturbed personality and weak superego; family influence, experiences of abuse in childhood, negative peer pressure; cultural and media influences (such as violent films, books, and games); and social injustices, like poverty and racial discrimination.

No single factor can explain all antisocial behavior, nor can moral motivation. The motivation for violence in a cold, calculating mugger is very different from the rage of a spurned lover; the conscious cruelty of a sadist, an assassination attempt by an extremist, a shooting by gang members, or a response to an inner voice that says "kill," are also different. Depending on the motivation behind each act of violence, it must be considered a product of rationality or psychosis, consistent with stable personality patterns or an anomaly, arising from exceptional emotions or extreme circumstances. There are even violent acts carried out with the aim of reforming or protecting the innocent, stemming from moral motivation.

Efforts to reduce violence can focus on reducing antisocial motives, on increasing moral motives, or on both. Strategies that focus solely on reducing antisocial motives contain the implicit assumption that aggression and greed are primarily products of social or psychological damage such as poverty, racial discrimination, alienation, or repressed desires. Presumably, some do not need moral development; and for others, one must only try to remedy the psychological or social damage that has prevented them from being kind to one another (Schulman, 1990).

In our view, misconduct is more a product of deficient moral motivation (such as low empathy, insufficient attachment to moral exemplars or the moral community, and weak moral principles) as well as unbridled antisocial desires (Hastings, Zahn-Waxler, Robinson, Usher, & Bridges, 2000). Educators must take important steps to strengthen moral motivation. Children need to hear from their parents that they are expected to treat others kindly and fairly, even when they do not feel like doing so. Unfortunately, many children today do not hear clear and firm advice in this regard.

Sometimes parents fear that their child will become too kind and sensitive to others, and will be easily fooled. Research does not support this concern. Children and adults who are kind out of empathy or moral principles (as opposed to those who try to please others for attention and friendship) are typically astute, resilient, and respected by adults (Carlson, Lahey, & Neeper, 1984; Kurdek & Krile, 1982).

With an optimistic view, we realize that most children act from conscience, and in our daily lives we encounter kind people more often than unkind ones. The fact that kindness evokes our positive emotions and does not seem unnatural; that we are usually not so astonished upon hearing of exceptional kindness or self-sacrifice (such as hearing the news that a soldier risked his life for a friend, or someone jumped into a river to save a stranger) and do not imagine that a strange act has occurred, is very hopeful. The abundance of these behaviors is such that we consider them natural, and we can understand the motivations behind these behaviors and empathize with that feeling. In contrast, extreme cruelty often bewilders us; we wonder how someone can be so ruthless. Some may find these evils interesting, but most people feel disgust or astonishment, and children usually cannot comprehend them. They cannot understand why a witch would want to kill children, or why Hitler massacred millions of people. We adults also cannot explain these matters well to them, nor can we understand them ourselves. When we hear news of extremely violent acts, such as a child shooting their classmates, no explanation can satisfy us. It seems that an appetite for violence is very unnatural, which is why the motivations of these individuals usually remain incomprehensible.

The fact that extreme goodness is more natural to us than extreme evil provides us with information about human nature. We are moving along a specific evolutionary path that, unlike other biological systems, values goodness. This interest in and sensitivity to morality has played a fundamental role in the creation of civilization and the survival and flourishing of the human species.

.

---

.

Endnotes:

[1] susceptibility

[2] internalization

[3] inspirational

[4] practical

[5] Prosocial dispositions

[6] Obedience to authority

.

---

.