Browsing by Subject "Judgment (Ethics)"
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
- Results Per Page
- Sort Options
Item Children's use of interpretations of evidence in judgments of behavior and beliefs(2005) Boerger, Elizabeth Anne; Woolley, JacquelineThe ability to evaluate others’ behavior in terms of the intentions that guide it is a key development in children’s understanding of personal responsibility (Piaget, 1932/1965). According to Piaget, young children attribute responsibility on the basis of the objective effects of behavior because they are not able to understand the reasons for rules that define permitted and prohibited behaviors. In contrast, older children and adults attribute responsibility on the basis of the actor’s subjective intentions. This ability reflects children’s developing understanding that rules represent the rule-maker’s anticipation of potential effects of the behavior for the individual and the social group. Thus, the developmental shift from objective to subjective concepts of responsibility, as seen in children’s evaluations of behavior, marks underlying development in children’s understanding of the ontology and purpose of rules, as well as in children’s ability to use rules to guide their own behavior. Several types of intention information may be used to attribute responsibility. These can include whether a specific outcome was intended, the actors’ motives for acting, and their knowledge about potential outcomes of their actions. Research on children’s evaluations of behavior has been guided by two theories, Piaget’s (1932/1965) and Heider’s (1958), that emphasize different aspects of intentionality as central to mature concepts of subjective responsibility. On the basis of a review of research guided by each of these theories, this paper argues that understanding of foreseeability as basis for attributing responsibility for beliefs is central to a subjective concept of responsibility. Two experiments exploring development in children’s understanding of responsibility for foreseeable outcomes are described. In Experiment 1, 5-year-olds, 6- and 7-year-olds and adults used foreseeability to attribute responsibility for unintended outcomes. In Experiment 2, although 6- to 12-year-olds and adults all used foreseeability to attribute responsibility for unintended outcomes, only 12-year-olds and adults consistently used foreseeability to attribute responsibility for false beliefs. Using foreseeability to attribute responsibility for beliefs was related, independently of age, to greater use of foreseeability in attributing responsibility for outcomes. Results are discussed in terms of developments in understanding of relations among evidence, beliefs and responsibility for behavior.Item The relationship between religious rules and the moral judgments of more religious and less religious Turkish Muslims(2007-12) Kuyel, Nilay Behice, 1970-; Neff, KristinNucci and Turiel (1993) have demonstrated that conservative Christians and Jews judge moral issues in terms of justice, rights, and human welfare considerations, and do not solely rely on religious precepts in their moral reasoning. The purpose of this study was to examine whether Turkish Muslims' moral reasoning is also relatively independent of religious prescriptions. Using Turiel's (1983) Domain Theory, the study investigated similarities and differences in the reasoning of more religious and less religious Turks on a variety of moral issues addressed by the Qur'an (a father forcing his daughter to marry someone without her express approval, abortion, homosexuality, adultery, testifying falsely in court, polygamy). The study also investigated whether Turkish Muslims associate harmful and unjust behaviors [e.g., violating others' rights, hurting others (physically or psychologically)], which are considered grave sins in Islam (5:8) (Hashmi, 2002), with God's most severe punishment. The study included 49 less religious Turkish students (20 males 29 females) and 49 more religious Turkish students (23 males 26 females), 18 years of age or older. Participants completed a self-report questionnaire containing six stories. Results were analyzed using a combination of Chi-Square and ANOVA techniques. Findings largely supported the proposition of Domain Theory (Turiel, 1983) that all individuals use moral reasoning that is in part based on justice and rights concerns, even highly religious individuals. The reasoning of more religious participants was mixed between moral and religious concerns. Moral concerns dominated their reasoning when considering forcing a daughter to marry or polygamy, while religious considerations dominated their reasoning for the issue of homosexuality only. The majority of less religious participants judged the issues in terms of justice, rights, and human welfare considerations, rather than on religious precepts. Also, the majority of all participants indicated that God punishes most those who violate others' rights and who harm others. This suggests that Turkish Muslims consistently value principles of justice, rights and welfare when considering moral issues, regardless of religious orientation.