We all need to consider how children of different ages might address the following age-appropriate scenario. Haidt (1993) advises one's actions are judged even when such actions are inoffensive (P. 614.), and offensive actions must be addressed, although people perceive them as harmless. All cultures practice ethical judgment while committing blameless transgressions. There are a few factors that I would like to focus on today, (such as the cultural, moral judgment, and moralizing stance vs. permissive stance). The scenario given today regards to Jane, and her moral decision to either return the money or to use it to purchase the toy item refers to reasoning. She was unable to buy herself the item because her mother did not have the $20. Therefore, Jane’s moral dilemma will be discussed in great detail. Let us begin!
Moral Dilemmas and Moral Reasoning
To begin with, all moral responsibilities require everyday scenarios. One cannot dispute the possibility of, there being duplicated practices in any individual’s virtuous choices. However, passiveness is a mere possibility for view pertaining to ethical psychology (Berk, 2010). Researchers find it necessary to distinguish when the more deliberative progressions operate, and how each relates to one another; such is the case with this week's scenario, Jane and the assigning moral reasoning through her cognition responses (Walden, 2012; Berk, 2010). An individual may have to decide to tell the truth; even if the person is risking hurting someone's feelings with a white lie. For example, if one was to clean out their closet, they would in turn, make a moral choice, whether to give the toy away or make a profit by selling them. Piaget, Kohlberg, and Gilligan believe the reasoning behind the rationale is what determines a person's level of principled development (Walden, 2012). Whereas, Haidt (1993) asserts culture and relations, temporality is determined by one's role. Today we will be...