Morality: Universal or Relative?

Morality is often understood as an adoption of rules that are considered ‘right’. Through their theories of moral development, Piaget and Kohlberg proposed the way in which an individual progresses on the path of moral development. The idea of universality has been of interest to researchers.
While some researches affirm the universal stance considering morality to be embedded in the evolutionary roots, some consider it to be influenced by factors unique to the individual. In the following sections, I have presented researches and my views in favor and against morality being universal or otherwise.
I have attempted to draw an analogy wherein I have considered certain aspects of morality to be universal, however have also considered various factors that influence the understanding of morality and moral development, thereby making it relative.
· Morality: universal or relative?
The ongoing debate has been whether the idea of morality itself is universal or relative. In my opinion, at a basic level, the understanding of morality is universal. For example: values of truthfulness, honesty etc. However, there are a number of factors that color the understanding of morality and thereby moral development too. In my view, the constructs and stages presented by Kohlberg seem to be universal, however, the conceptualization of the same varies due to variations in individual characteristics, cultures and societal views.
· Evolutionary roots, Neuro cognition and Researches
A number of studies have affirmed the universal biological basis of morality. Van Vugt & Van Lange, 2006 proposed that the tendency to sacrifice personal gain in favor of group welfare is present at an early age in both humans and animals. Pro social behaviors are rooted in the genetic heritage of our species and have evolved because of their survival values. (Wilson, 1975) The morally relevant tendencies like altruism and aggression have been found to have a biological basis too. (Carlo, in press; Coie & Dodge, 1998; Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998) (Van Vugt & Van lange, 2006)
Also, researches on neurocognition indicate that Ventromedial and orbitofrontal areas of the pre frontal cortex impact the emotional responsiveness. (Damasio, 1994) The EEG and fMRI reports of psychopaths indicate at extremely low levels of empathy and guilt which is characterized by reduced activity in these areas.
To test the universality of Kohlberg’s theory, 45 studies of moral development including 38 cross sectional and 7 longitudinal have been carried out in 27 countries. It has been found that when the participant is interviewed in his/ her own native language, the interview is reasonably culturally fair. When age range and sample size were taken into consideration, the research concluded that stage 1 to stage 3/4 existed universally. However, in contrast to the failure of exhibiting post conventional morality by the folk cultural groups, most samples from middle class or urban populations demonstrated the presence of principled reasoning. The lack of consideration of certain values like collective solidarity specific to these communities could be a possible explanation for such results. (Snarey, 1987)
A longitudinal study by Colby et al., (1983) verified Kohlberg’s assumption that everyone passes the stages of development by testing 58 male participants, 6 times over 27 years.
Despite the researches that have affirmed his stance, I believe that there are certain important factors that challenge the universality. They are as follows:
· Moral development and different levels of reinforcement and modeling
The social learning theory suggests that children’s learning of moral behavior is based on the principle of modeling. This is reinforced by tangible or intangible rewards. (Bandura, 1997) Internalization of pro social rules takes place as a result of constant observation of compassionate behavior and encouragement. (Mussen & Eisenberg 1977)
By using this model, it can be argued that the extent of exposure to pro social models influences the level of moral reasoning in the child. This very variation in the levels of influence questions the universality of Kohlberg’s theory.
· Parental style of discipline and moral development
A number of times I have observed that parents reprimand their children for doing something ‘wrong’ but they often do not tell them the reason for this punishment. The type of discipline which gives a rationale to children for altering their behavior is induction. Here an adult helps the child in noticing the distress caused by his/ her actions to others and encourages him/ her to accept moral principles. A study by Patrick and Gibbs in 2011 suggested that there is a positive correlation between induction and moral identity. In contrast, the style of discipline that relies heavily on punishment and threats of withdrawal of affection and care restricts a child’s empathetic responding and internalization of moral standards. (Eisenberg, Fabes & Spinrad, 2006)
Other factors influencing family environment like communication, cohesion and adaptability have an impact on morality in adolescence. (White & Mattawie, 2004)
Together with parenting styles, the child’s characteristics like age and temperament are extremely important to consider for conscience development. Kochanska et al., 2002 suggested that “in contrast to impulsive children for whom gentle discipline does not work, a request or suggestion are enough to prompt guilt and ethical standards in pre schoolers who are anxious.”
· Moral development and gender differences
Carol Gilligan (1982), in her book ‘In a different voice’ critiqued Kohlberg’s theory to be androcentric. She suggested that Kohlberg’s theory had unfairly treated women’s moral development. She expressed that women approach moral problems typically in a different fashion as compared to the men. Though still hotly debated, some researchers have affirmed her stance that although morality consists of both: care and justice, women tend to emphasize on the former more that the latter. (Weisz & Black, 2002)
· Moral development and schooling & peer interaction
In my opinion, moral reasoning and understanding goes in adjunct with cognitive development. Opportunities of becoming aware of the social diversity and getting the chance to express oneself helps one to get in touch with social issues. This awareness tends to help them in advancement in moral reasoning. (Comunian & Gielen, 2006) Research affirms the positive correlation between diverse viewpoints and moral reasoning. An understanding about various standpoints gives people the opportunity to realize the key principles of corporation, compromise and negotiation which aids in pro social behavior. (Killen & Nucci, 1995)
· Culture and moral development
Although some degree of consistency within and between cultures exist in the way some issues are dealt with morally, there exists a great degree of diversity in the way members express their take on certain issues. (Turiel et al., 1987) Also, Kohlberg’s universality of morality is questioned by the very fact that there are diverse views regarding the meaning and significance of morality itself across cultures.
Kohlberg has been criticized for being culturally biased in favor of western understanding of what is morally ‘advanced’.
Gibbs et al., 2007 proposed that inhabitants of village lag behind in the development of moral reasoning as compared to people from industrialized nations. Other factor such as participation in the institutions of one’s society leads to an advanced moral reasoning. As compared to children who were brought up in Israeli cities or U.S, children from the agricultural settlements in Israel (Kibbutzim) express more concerns about societal laws and rules while discussing moral conflicts due to their training received in middle childhood for community governance. (Fuchs et al., 1986)
Kohlberg’s stages 5 and 6 suggest morality should be based on personal values rather than societal laws. Snarey (1985) This autonomous relativism clearly ignores the collectivist stance. Collectivist cultures tend to give more emphasis on the society as a whole rather than to an individual. (Miller, 2007) Miller & Bersoff, 1995 concluded that “In India, people who were expected to have attained Kohlberg’s stages 4 and 5 viewed solutions to moral dilemmas as the responsibility of the entire society, not of a single person.”
Some cross cultural studies in New Guinea, Kenya, India and Taiwan propose that certain moral judgments that are culturally unique have not been considered in theory. Most importantly, the understanding of collectivist principles have been ignored by Kohlberg.
Also, culture has its own limitations. For example: In a culture, even discussing and sharing views about abortion is condemned. Given such a scenario, where being aware is also discouraged, let alone actually doing it, how would a citizen even develop a moral stand point of whether it is right or wrong! How can one actually advance their moral reasoning abilities in a situation like this? In my view, not only the understanding of the very concept of morality but the levels to which one can explore it is culturally determined.
Different takes on morality and moral behavior may be as a result of a culture’s orientation towards either the ‘culture of rights’ or ‘culture of duty’. For example, In a collectivist country like ours, it is evident that the moral dilemmas may be solved by the culture of duties, considering the needs of the larger group as compared to the needs of a few. (Sachdeva, 2010)
Together with cultural differences, the influence of religious beliefs on how and what a person believes to be morally right or wrong was not considered. A study by Schweder et al., (1987) revealed that as compared to U.S children, a son getting a haircut or having chicken post his father’s death was considered as a major moral offence for Hindu children.
Drawing upon from the above, it can be safely concluded that cultural relativism was probably not given the importance it deserved.
· My views
On the basis of the of the review of researches and my reflection on the same, the framework of moral development proposed by Kohlberg seems to be present across cultures. The constructs are universal, however the conceptualization of the same may differ. These socially constructed differences may not only be applicable between cultures but within them too.
Snarey (1985) proposed that stage five of Kohlberg’s theory may not be applicable to non industrialized societies like Kenya and New Guinea. This stage suggests that an individual at this stage, when not in agreement with the rules of the society, may ignore them and choose his/ her individually held belief systems or negotiate. However, taking an example of a village in India, it is highly unlikely for a person to stand up for his/ her belief systems as opposed to the group beliefs and expectations. However, another way of looking at the same situation is that the individual may go through the stage five, as suggested by Kohlberg, however the degree to which he is able to exhibit his moral understanding for the same is influenced by the society and culture that he is a part of.
Thus, I feel that the general framework provided by Kohlberg seems to have a universal quality but the way it is understood and conceptualized makes it relative.
· Conclusion
Although researchers have presented completely opposite views regarding Kohlberg’s theory being universal or otherwise, in my opinion, a clear distinction may not be possible.
There have been criticisms regarding the ignorance of the cultural factors, the fact that he himself dropped stage six, lack of focus on the emotional content and the formulation of the questions on ethical dilemmas. Questions have also been raised on the applicability of the responses, considering the fact that the decisions were not taken in a ‘real life situation’ where various other factors play an important role. However, amidst the criticisms raised, the contributions made by him should not be ignored. Researchers have also affirmed the cross cultural applicability of the same.
Therefore, I would like to best conclude by saying that the stages proposed by him seem to have a universal applicability with several factors making the progression and conceptualization of the same relative.
*In case you enjoyed reading this, please do like, comment & share*
