The Role of Moral Reasoning in Burglary Offences - Assignment Example

Moral reasoning is a segment of social cognition that particularly aims at understanding the reason to why young people involve themselves in criminal offenses or behaviors. In most cases delinquency is associated with delayed maturation and development of moral reasoning. For minors when an opportunity for a crime arises, their underdeveloped cognitive ability to control and resist the urge or temptation to offend allows them to go ahead and commit the criminal act. In general this group of offenders lack self control and they tend to act impulsively. The strength of causation of crime varies from one individual to the other. In this paper I will discuss several theories in relation to the moral reasoning, evidence for and against moral reasoning. Background According to Kohlberg’s theory of moral reasoning, the cognitive-development takes an assumption that the primary mental structure is as a result of relationships between organismic structuring tendencies and the general structure of the outside world. Kohlberg examines that moral reasoning is exercised in the mental structure; the structure refers to the general attributes of shape, pattern organization of response like rules that guide the processing of information, for connecting experienced events. He goes a head and explains that linkages are formed by both choosy and lively processes of attention, information-acquiring tactics and motivated thinking. Kohlberg’s structures of moral reasoning are synthetic due to the active processes between the human organism which is a self regulating system of cognitive and effective inclination and the social atmosphere where it is found (Kohlberg, 1978). Moral Reasoning is a process that progresses through stages. The theory argues that moral reasoning catapults the cognitive growth, for instance the capacity to reason and think is basic for improved and high levels of moral reasoning. Advanced moral reasoning wholly depends on advanced logical reasoning, that is, one’s logical stage demarcates the moral stage he can achieve. The moral stages are supposed to be taken for the distinct reasons that they are worth of. Morality is the foundation on which Kohlberg’s theory is developed. In cognitive development, morality is an ordinary product of a worldwide human predisposition towards empathy or role taking, and putting oneself in the conscious condition of another being. Consequently, moral reasoning is a product of a universal human advocacy for justice. Kohlberg’s understanding of morality is primarily based on Piaget’s definition whereby all morality comprises of rules, and the core of morality as a whole is to be sought for in the reverence which a person acquires for these rules. Morality according to Kohlberg is judgment based on justice. However justice is a distribution of rights and duties governed by concepts of quality and reciprocity. Justice is identified and recognized by Piaget’s logic, the equilibrium of social action and relations (Howitt, 2006). Moral Stages according to Kohlberg’s theory are divided into Preconventional level, Conventional level and Postconventional level (Kohlberg, 1978). Preconventional level Stage 1: Obedience and Punishment Orientation-the physical penalties of an action establishes its righteousness or wickedness regardless of human connotation or importance. These outcomes are based on the impact to the individual, not the results. Stage 2: Instrumental-relativism Orientation-a right action is that which instrumentally fulfills one’s own needs and in some occasions the needs of others. These two stages have an egocentric point of view where one’s choices are based on the fear of punishment and a desire to be rewarded. Conventional level Stage 3: The Interpersonal concordance Orientation: good manners and actions are those which please or help others and are acknowledged by them. The person progresses to consider the approval or disapproval of other and not only after fulfilling one’s own interests. The intention of self and others are considered. Stage 4: Law and Order orientation: the progress is made with regard to looking at the society at large rather than yourself and approval of others. Generally it is the orientation towards law, fixed rules and maintenance of social order. Doing one’s duties while showing respect to the power and preserving the specified social order for its own purpose. The conventional stage requires one to make choices from a society’s perspective, considering the good of others, positive relation maintenance taking into consideration the rules of the society. Postconventional level Stage 5: Social Contract Orientation: Right actions are defined in terms of an individual’s rights and standards rather than those that have been examined and agreed upon by the society at large. The individual see the current rules and regulations as subordinate to the needs of the society instead of instructing them. Stage 6: Worldwide Principles of Ethics Orientation: Correctness refers to an assessment of ones principles in relation to predetermined individual morals attractive to the logical comprehensiveness, universality, and consistence. Principles are abstract and ethical; universal principles of justice, reciprocity and quality of human rights with respect of human beings as individual persons. In the Postconventional level, prior to the society’s perspective, personal ideals take precedence over particular societal laws. Literature review Evidence for Moral Reasoning 1. Eysenck Personality Theory Psychologies the world over assume that behavioral consistence relies or depends primarily on the determination of one’s underlying attributes to act in a particular way in a certain situation. These tendencies are mainly personal traits like impulsiveness, assertiveness, excitement seeking, dutifulness and modesty. According to Eysenck, offending is a normal and rational basing on the supposition that people were pleasure-seeking, are after pleasure and evade pain. He also identifies that criminal acts like theft, vandalism, and violence were generally pleasurable to the offenders. Eysenck also gives the reason to why all people are not criminals to be as a result of build up conscience (conditioned fear response). Nevertheless, people who commit offenses have no strong conscience build up because they have poor conditionality. To Eysenck, poor conditionality is associated with personality dimensions: Extraversion (E), Neuroticism (N) and Psychoticism (P). He defines that people with high E build up respond poorly as they have lower levels of cortical arousal. Those with high levels of N condition less well as their high resting levels of anxiety obstructs their conditioning. In addition N stimulates and anchors the existing behavioral tendencies, for instance neurotic extroverts are criminals. High P levels individuals particularly tend to be offenders; they are emotionally cold, have high hostility, inhuman with low empathy. Studies relating to Eysenck personality dimensions reported that people with high N were official offenders while those with high E levels self-reported offending. High P level was found to be related to both. The study of 400 boys in London, reported that those found with high levels of both E and N were youthful self-reported criminals, grown-up representative offenders and mature self-reported offenders. No juvenile official offender was reported. In addition to these, there are other factors like stumpy family income, low aptitude, and poor parental/guardian child nurturing behavior that contributed to the malice. From individual questionnaires, it was established that impulsiveness was key causing these criminal acts amongst the minors. There is a big linkage between impulsiveness and offending. 2. Impulsive Theories Doing things without thinking is the most vital and crucial personality dimension that envisages offending. Some individuals are unable to control behavior; they are always hyper-reactive, impulsive, and unable to consider consequences before acting, sensation-seeking, risk-taking, poor ability to plan ahead and poor ability to control gratification. A study of 400 boys in London, three categories of the boys ended up offenders in their later life: a) boys nominated by teachers to be lacking concentration or exhibited restlessness, b) boys nominated by parents, peers, and teachers to be most daring or risk taking, and c) boy who were highly impetuous on psychomotor examinations between ages eight to ten. In essence, daring, poor concentration, and restlessness envisaged both self-reported felony and official convictions; boldness being the independent predictor. The Pittsburgh Youth Study by Jennifer White found out that self-reported delinquency of males between ten and thirteen years were teacher rated impulsiveness, self-reported under-control, motor restlessness and psychomotor restlessness. In general, most theories suggest that impulsiveness reflects the deficiency in the administrative function of the brain, at the frontal lobe. Individuals with neuropsychological shortage are likely to commit crimes as they have poor moral control over their behavior. There is also an indirect connection between neuropsychological deficiency and offending whish is propagated by hyperactivity and inattention in schools thus resulting into school failures. Some related assumptions suggest that short cortical stimulation generates impulsive and sensational seeking behavior (Howitt, 2006). The payback of crime includes material gain, sexual satisfaction, and peer consent. Despite these benefits, there are diverse consequences in relation to offending or committing a crime like being caught and punished, pangs of conscience, and disapproval by onlookers. (Howitt (2006) refers to works of Wilson and Herrnstein who described and emphasized conscience as the key to prevent offending or crime, and that conscience is built up in asocial learning perspective regardless of parental punishment in childhood transgressions. In this regard, individual difference is also another factor according to Wilson-Herrnstein theory as it offers the degree to which people’s actions are predisposed by the immediate contrasting to delayed costs. Individuals differ in their abilities to make themselves ready for the future. Highly impulsive individuals are poorly influenced by the likelihood of the future repercussions thus they are more likely to offend or commit a crime. Evidence against Moral Reasoning From practical arguments, morality is a rational enterprise. In Moral despair and Moral discouragement we are told that if there is no source of ethics, order of morality will crumple; it will stop to be a sustainable enterprise. For instance, Kant argues that if the uppermost good cannot be achieved then the moral law that bids us to ask for it must be incredible and directed to invented ends must thus in itself be false. In relation to this, if morality ends are unattainable, then there would be no obligations and duties. In general it would be demoralizing believing that there is lack of a worldwide accepted norm of behavior because demoralization in itself is morally undesirable. For instance, Theism acts as a source of moral order which then implies that there is an advantage in believing that there is moral order in the universe that governs all activities and duties of human beings. For this matter there is a moral advantage of accepting theism. Morality demands that we grow to be as good as we can be, this then means that without the basis of moral order the world over then the desire of we developing into as good as we ought to be is confronted with many complexities. And the only way these difficulties can taken or driven away is by us accepting theism. In essence we have a moral reason for driving ourselves into a situation where we can come to believe in the truth of theism (Howitt, 2006). In most of the times, truth itself does not inspire people and there is no chance to assume it is false. People are after organizing the world in order to attain our sincere human wants. With this in mind, such a hypothesis would be null and void if existence of God who gives us a divine source of moral order. In addition Kant appeals that individuals should believe that there is God but there are also needs of reason. Drabkin’s take is that the moral ills that afflicts or would trouble us if there was no God provide us a platform, not for the conviction that there is a God, but for undertaking the mission of becoming to suppose that there is a God. This is evidence enough to go against moral reasoning (Howitt, 2006). Conclusion Moral reasoning helps in establishing the real causes of criminal behaviors amongst the young individuals. Kohlberg’s theory is key and funder mental in establishing the behavioral characteristics and traits of and individual through his developmental stages. For instance Kohlberg explains different stages of behavior development starting with Preconventional level, conventional level then lastly the Postconventional level. Evidence for moral reasoning are provided using two theories; Eysenck personality theory where offending is considered to be normal and pleasurable to the offenders. The theory also tells us that criminals have no strong conscience build up because of their poor conditionality. Impulsive theories explains to a great extend what causes one to offend; for example the theories explains that some individuals are unable to control their behavior, are hyperactive, impulsive and unable consequences before acting, they are sensation-seeking, apt in risk-taking, and poor ability to control gratification. The evidence against moral reasoning provides us with the existence of God who is the source of moral order of the universe. Morality is the key to having a good and cohesive society the world over. References Howitt, D. (2006). Introduction to Forensic and Criminal Psychology. Loughborough: Pearson Longman. Kohlberg, L. (1978). Revisions in the Theory and Practice of Moral Development. Directions for Child Development, 2, 83-88. Read More