MORAL DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE THE PRIME MOTTO OF EDUCATION!!!

Moral development focuses on the emergence, change, and understanding of morality from infancy through adulthood. In the field of moral development, morality is defined as principles for how individuals ought to treat one another, with respect to justice, others' welfare, and rights.

Moral development focuses on the emergence, change, and understanding of morality from infancy through adulthood. In the field of moral development, morality is defined as principles for how individuals ought to treat one another, with respect to justice, others' welfare, and rights. In order to investigate how individuals understand morality, it is essential to measure their beliefs, emotions, attitudes, and behaviors that contribute to moral understanding. The field of moral development studies the role of peers and parents in facilitating moral development, the role of conscience and values, socialization and cultural influences, empathy and altruism, and positive development. The interest in morality spans many disciplines (e.g., philosophy, economics, biology, and political science) and specializations within psychology (e.g., social, cognitive, and cultural). Moral developmental psychology research focuses on questions of origins and change in morality across the lifespan.

Introductory works/historical background

Jean Piaget.

The founder of psychoanalysis, Freud (1962), proposed the existence of a tension between the needs of society and the individual. According to Freud, moral development proceeds when the individual's selfish desires are repressed and replaced by the values of important socializing agents in one's life (for instance, one's parents). A proponent of behaviorism, Skinner (1972) similarly focused on socialization as the primary force behind moral development. In contrast to Freud's notion of a struggle between internal and external forces, Skinner focused on the power of external forces (reinforcement contingencies) to shape an individual's development. While both Freud and Skinner focused on the external forces that bear on morality (parents in the case of Freud, and behavioral contingencies in the case of Skinner), Piaget (1965) focused on the individual's construction, construal, and interpretation of morality from a social-cognitive and social-emotional perspective.

To understand adult morality, Piaget believed that it was necessary to study both how morality manifests in the child's world as well as the factors that contribute to the emergence of central moral concepts such as welfare, justice, and rights. Interviewing children using the Clinical Interview Method, Piaget (1965) found that young children were focused on authority mandates, and that with age children become autonomous, evaluating actions from a set of independent principles of morality. Kohlberg (1953) expanded upon Piagetian notions of moral development. While they both viewed moral development as a result of a deliberate attempt to increase the coordination and integration of one's orientation to the world, Kohlberg's studies and research provided a systematic 3-level, 6-stage sequence reflecting changes in moral judgment throughout the lifespan. Specifically, Kohlberg argued that development proceeds from a selfish desire to avoid punishment (personal), to a concern for group functioning (societal), to a concern for the consistent application of universal ethical principles (moral).Furthermore, Kohlberg believed that in order for a child to advance to a more developed level of morality, he or she must develop an equivalent level of intellectual ability. In the words of Kohlberg, “ The child can internalize the moral values of his parents and culture and make them his own only as he comes to relate these values to a comprehended social order and to his own goals as a social self”.[5] Although Kohlberg is praised for his work there have been many questions raised whether or not it is 100% accurate. Many people believe his six-stage theory was sexist because only males were in the test group for this study. Regardless, Kolberg's research cemented his expanded ideas on moral development as legitimate in the field of developmental psychology.

Turiel (1983, 1998, 2002, 2006) argued for a social domain approach to social cognition, delineating how individuals differentiate moral (fairness, equality, justice), societal (conventions, group functioning, traditions), and psychological (personal, individual prerogative) concepts from early in development throughout the lifespan.[6] Over the past 40 years, research findings have supported this model, demonstrating how children, adolescents, and adults differentiate moral rules from conventional rules, identify the personal domain as a nonregulated domain, and evaluate multifaceted (or complex) situations that involve more than one domain.

For the past 20 years, researchers have expanded the field of moral development, applying moral judgment, reasoning, and emotion attribution to topics such as prejudice, aggression, theory of mind, emotions, empathy, peer relationships, and parent-child interactions. The Handbook of Moral Development (2006), edited by Melanie Killen and Judith Smetana, provides a wide range of information about these topics covered in moral development today.

Interpersonal influences

Children's interactions with caregivers and peers have been shown to influence their development of moral understanding and behavior. Researchers have addressed the influence of interpersonal interactions on children's moral development from two primary perspectives: socialization/internalization (Grusec & Goodnow, 1994; Kochanska & Askan, 1995; Kochanska, Askan, & Koenig, 1995 and social domain theory (Turiel, 1983; Smetana 2006 ) . Research from the social domain theory perspective focuses on how children actively distinguish moral from conventional behavior based in part on the responses of parents, teachers, and peers (Smetana, 1997). Adults tend to respond to children's moral transgressions (e.g. hitting or stealing) by drawing the child's attention to the effect of his or her action on others, and doing so consistently across various contexts. In contrast, adults are more likely to respond to children's conventional misdeeds (e.g. wearing a hat in the classroom, eating spaghetti with fingers) by reminding children about specific rules and doing so only in certain contexts (e.g. at school but not at home) (Smetana, 1984; 1985). Peers respond mainly to moral but not conventional transgressions and demonstrate emotional distress (e.g. crying or yelling) when they are the victim of moral but unconventional transgressions (Smetana, 1984). Children then use these differing cues to help determine whether behaviors are conventionally wrong.

Research from a socialization/internalization perspective focuses on the ways in which adults pass down standards of behavior to children through parenting techniques and why children do or do not internalize those values (Grusec & Goodnow, 1994; Kochanska & Askan, 1995). From this perspective, moral development involves children's increasing compliance with and internalization of adult rules, requests, and standards of behavior. Using these definitions, researchers find that parenting behaviors vary in the extent to which they encourage children's internalization of values, and that these effects depend partially on child attributes, such as age and temperament (Grusec & Goodnow, 1994). For instance, Kochanska (1997) showed that gentle parental discipline best promotes conscience development in temperamentally fearful children but that parental responsiveness and a mutually responsive parent-child orientation best promote conscience development in temperamentally fearless children. These parental influences exert their effects through multiple pathways, including increasing children's experience of moral emotions (e.g. guilt, empathy) and their self-identification as moral individuals (Kochanska, 2010 ).

Morality and cognition: intentionality

A hallmark of moral understanding is intentionality. Recent research on children's theory of mind, ToM, has focused on when children understand others' intentions (Wellman & Lui, 2004). The moral concept of actor intentionality develops with experience in the world. Yuill (1984) presented evidence that comprehension of actor intentions plays a role in moral judgment, even in young children. Killen, Mulvey, Richardson, Jampol, and Woodward (2011) present evidence that with developing false belief competence (ToM), children are capable of using information about actor intentions when making moral judgments about act acceptability and punishment acceptability, recognizing that accidental transgressors, who do not hold negative intentions, should not be held accountable for negative outcomes. In this study, children who lacked false belief competence were more likely to attribute blame to an accidental transgressor than children with demonstrated false belief competence. In addition to evidence from a social cognitive perspective, behavioral evidence suggests that even three-year-olds have the capacity to take into account actor intention and apply this information when responding to situations. Vaish, Carpenter, and Tomasello (2010), for instance, present evidence that three-year-olds are more willing to help a neutral or helpful actor than a harmful actor. Beyond the ability to identify actor intentionality, mental state understanding plays a crucial role in identifying victimization. While obvious distress cues (e.g. crying) allow even three year olds to identify victims of harm (Zelazo, Helwig, & Lau, 1996), it isn't until around six years of age that children are able to appreciate that a person may be an unwilling victim of harm even in the absence of obvious distress (Shaw & Wainryb, 2006). In their study, Shaw and Wainryb (2006) discovered that children older than six interpret compliance, resistance, and subversion to illegitimate requests (e.g., clean my locker) from the perspective of a victim. That is, they judge that victims who resist illegitimate requests will feel better than victims who comply.

Morality and intergroup attitudes

Researchers interested in intergroup attitudes and behavior have approached the study of stereotypes, prejudice and discrimination in children and adolescents from several theoretical perspectives. Some of these theoretical frameworks include: Cognitive Development Theory (Aboud, 1988); Social Domain Theory (Killen & Rutland, 2011; Killen, Sinno, & Margie, 2007 ); Social Identity Development Theory (Nesdale, 1999); Developmental Intergroup Theory (Bigler & Liben, 2006); Subjective Group Dynamics (Abrams, Rutland, & Cameron, 2003; Rutland, Killen, & Abrams, 2010); Implicit Theories (Levy, Chiu, & Hong, 2006) and Intergroup-contact Theory (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008). The plethora of research approaches is not surprising given the multitude of variables, (e.g. group identity, group status, group threat, group norms, intergroup contact, individual beliefs and context) that need to be considered when assessing children's intergroup attitudes. While most of this research has investigated two-dimensional relationships between each of the three components: stereotypes, prejudice and discrimination (e.g., role of stereotypes in intergroup prejudice, use of stereotypes to reason about intergroup discrimination, how prejudices manifest into discrimination), very few have addressed all three aspects of intergroup attitudes and behaviors together (McKown, 2004).

In developmental intergroup research, stereotypes are defined as judgments made about an individual's attributes based on group membership (Killen, Margie, & Sinno, 2006; Killen et al., 2007). Social psychologists focus on stereotypes as cognitive components influencing intergroup behaviors and tend to define them as being fixed concepts associated with a category (Allport, 1954). Prejudice, on the other hand is defined in terms of negative attitudes or affective expressions toward a whole group or members of a group (Stangor, 2009). Negative stereotypes and prejudices can manifest into discrimination towards an outgroup and for children and adolescents this may come in the form of exclusion from peer groups (Killen & Rutland, 2011).

Within an intergroup encounter children and adolescents have been found to weigh concerns about fairness, justice and the welfare of others when making decisions about inclusion or exclusion of an outgroup member into a peer group.

Social exclusion

Intergroup exclusion context provides an appropriate platform to investigate the interplay of these three dimensions of intergroup attitudes and behaviors, prejudice, stereotypes and discrimination. Developmental scientists working from a Social Domain Theory (SDT: Killen et al., 2006; Smetana, 2006) perspective have focused on methods that measure children's reasoning about exclusion scenarios. This approach has been helpful in distinguishing which concerns children attend to when presented with a situation in which exclusion occurs. Exclusion from a peer group could raise concerns about moral issues (e.g. fairness and empathy towards excluded), social-conventional issues (e.g., traditions and social norms set by institutions and groups) and personal issues (e.g., autonomy, individual preferences related to friendships), and these can coexist depending on the context in which the exclusion occurs. In intergroup as well as intragroup contexts, children need to draw on knowledge and attitudes related to their own social identities, other social categories, the social norms associated with these categories as well as moral principals about the welfare of the excluded, and fair treatment, to make judgments about social exclusion.

Findings from a Social Domain Theory perspective show that children are sensitive to the context of exclusion and pay attention to different variables when judging or evaluating exclusion. These variables include, social categories, the stereotypes associated with them, children's qualifications as defined by prior experience with an activity, personality and behavioral traits that might be disruptive for group functioning and conformity to conventions as defined by group identity or social consensus. In the absence of information, stereotypes can be used to justify exclusion of a member of an out-group (Horn 2003, Killen and Stangor, 2001. One's personality traits and whether he/she conforms to socially accepted behaviors related to identity also provide further criteria for social acceptance and inclusion by peers (Killen, Crystal, & Watanabe, 2002 Park, Killen, Crystal, & Watanabe, 2003 ). As children get older they become more attuned to issues of group functioning and conventions and weigh them in congruence with issues of fairness and morality (Killen & Stangor, 2001).

Moral emotions

Moral questions tend to be emotionally charged issues which evoke strong affective responses. Consequently, emotions likely play an important role in moral development. However, there is currently little consensus among theorists on how emotions influence moral development. Psychoanalytic theory, founded by Freud, emphasizes the role of guilt in repressing primal drives. Research on prosocial behavior has focused on how emotions motivate individuals to engage in moral or altruistic acts. Social-cognitive development theories have recently begun to examine how emotions influence moral judgments. Intuitionist theorists assert that moral judgments can be reduced to immediate, instinctive emotional responses elicited by moral dilemmas.

Research on socioemotional development and prosocial development has identified several "moral emotions" which are believed to motivate moral behavior and influence moral development (Eisenberg, 2000 for a review). The primary emotions consistently linked with moral development are guilt, shame, empathy, and sympathy. Guilt has been defined as "an agitation-based emotion or painful feeling of regret that is aroused when the actor actually causes, anticipates causing, or is associated with an aversive event" (Fergusen & Stegge, 1998). Shame is often used synonymously with guilt, but implies a more passive and dejected response to a perceived wrong. Guilt and shame are considered "self-conscious" emotions, because they are of primary importance to an individual's self-evaluation. In contrast to guilt and shame, empathy and sympathy are considered other-oriented moral emotions. Empathy is commonly defined as an affective response produced by the apprehension or comprehension of another's emotional state which mirrors the other's affective state. Similarly, sympathy is defined as an emotional response produced by the apprehension or comprehension of another's emotional state which does not mirror the other's affect, but instead causes one to express concern or sorrow for the other (Eisenberg, 2000).

The relation between moral action and moral emotions has been extensively researched. Very young children have been found to express feelings of care, and empathy towards others, showing concerns for other's well being (Eisenberg, Spinard, & Sadovsky, 2006). Research has consistently demonstrated that when empathy is induced in an individual, he or she is more likely to engage in subsequent prosocial behavior (Batson 1998; Eisenberg, 200 for review). Additionally, other research has examined emotions of shame and guilt in relation to children's emphatic and prosocial behavior (Zahn-Waxler & Robinson, 1995).

While emotions serve as information for children in their interpretations about moral consequences of acts, the role of emotions in children's moral judgments has only recently been investigated. Some approaches to studying emotions in moral judgments come from the perspective that emotions are automatic intuitions that define morality (Greene, 2001;Haidt, 2001). Other approaches place emphasis on the role of emotions as evaluative feedback that help children interpret acts and consequences (Turiel & Killen, 2010). Research has shown children attribute different emotional outcomes to actors involved in moral transgressions than those involved in conventional transgressions (Arsenio, 1988, Arsenio & Fleiss, 1996 ). Emotions may help individuals prioritize among different information and possibilities and reduce information processing demands in order to narrow the scope of the reasoning process (Lemerise & Arsenio, 2000). In addition, Malti, Gummerum, Keller, & Buchmann, (2009) found individual differences in how children attribute emotions to victims and victimizers.

Morality and culture

The role of culture on moral development is an important topic which raises fundamental questions about what is universal and what is culturally specific regarding morality and moral development. Many research traditions have examined this question, with social-cognitive and structural developmental positions theorizing that morality has a universal requirement to it, drawing from moral philosophy. The expectation is that if morality exists, it has to do with those values that are generalizable across groups and cultures. Alternatively, cultural relativistic positions have been put forth mostly by socialization theories which focus on how cultures transmit values rather than what values are applied across groups and individuals.

As an example of some of the debates, Shweder, Mahapatra, and Miller (1987) argued for moral relativism, or the notion that different cultures defined the boundaries of morality differently. In contrast, Turiel and Perkins (2004) argued for the universality of morality, focusing largely on evidence throughout history of resistance movements that fight for justice through the affirmation of individual self-determination rights. In an update on the debate between moral relativism and moral universality, Miller (2006) provides a thoughtful review of the cultural variability of moral priorities, arguing that rather than variability in what individuals consider moral (fairness, justice, rights), there is cultural variability in the priority given to moral considerations (e.g., the importance of prosocial helping). Wainryb (2006), in contrast, reviews extensive literature which has demonstrated that children in diverse cultures such as the U.S., India, China, Turkey, and Brazil share a pervasive view about upholding fairness and the wrongfulness of inflicting harm on others. Cultures vary in terms of conventions and customs, but not principles of fairness, which appear to emerge very early in development, prior to socialization influences. Wainryb (1991; 1993) shows that many apparent cultural differences in moral judgments are actually due to different informational assumptions, or beliefs about the way the world works. When people hold different beliefs about the effects of actions or the status of different groups of people, their judgments about the harmfulness or fairness of behaviors often differ, even when they are applying the same moral principles.

Another powerful socializing mechanism by which values are transmitted is religion, which is for many inextricably linked to a cultural identity. Nucci and Turiel (1993) assessed individuals' reactions to dictates from God, and the distinctions in their reactions to God's moral (e.g., stealing) and conventional (e.g., day of worship) dictates. One explicit manner in which societies can socialize individuals is through moral education. Solomon and colleagues (1988) present evidence from a study that integrated both direct instruction and guided reflection approaches to moral development, with evidence for resultant increases in spontaneous prosocial behavior. Finally, studies of moral development and cultural issues cover many subtopics. For instance, a recent review of studies examining social exclusion, identifies cultural similarities in the evaluation of exclusion across a range of societies and cultures (Hitti, Mulvey & Killen, 2011).

The role of religion in a culture may have an impact on a child's moral development and sense of moral identity. For instance, intrinsic aspects of religion may have a positive impact on the internalization and the symbolism of moral identity. If religion is a family activity it may help the child internalize the parents' morals.

Morality and storytelling

In many Indigenous communities, storytelling provides a foundation for children in understanding the core values of their community. Storytelling carries lessons across generational lines with words of meaning and instruction, providing children the guidelines for living life. It is used as a tool to pass down the symbolic significances of life and ideologies of moral character.

Native American tribes use storytelling as a primary means of educating young people in the words, characters, and creatures used. Once children are old enough to understand and retain information, lessons of morals, ideals, and ethics are taught through stories told alongside daily household chores in casual but consistent ways. The omnipresence of storytelling in everyday life is used as an indirect form of teaching.

Children become attentive toward finding the moral lesson within a story that are easily recognized by other members of the community. The understanding gained from a child's observation of morality and ethics taught through storytelling allows them to participate within their community appropriately. Most children in Indigenous American communities develop a sense of keen attention to the details of a story with the goal of learning from them, and to understand why people do the things they do. They learn to extract the essence of what the moral lesson of the stories are meant to reflect.

An important element of storytelling as a form of learning is the use of specific animals as characters. Certain animals, some worshipped and some cast as tricksters, symbolize specific values and views of the culture, and listeners are taught through the actions of these characters. In the Lakota tribe, coyotes are often viewed as a trickster character, demonstrating negative behaviors like greed, recklessness, and arrogance that ultimately gets him into trouble, or even killed. These lessons teach children they should avoid exhibiting these behaviors to keep out of trouble. In some tribes, the bear and the fox are usually viewed as wise, noble, and morally upright, and children learn to model after these characters. The reuse of characters calls for a more predictable outcome that children can more easily understand.

Storytelling can be seen as a central power to shaping and forming the minds of young children in these communities, as well as the dominant means for understanding, and the basic foundation for learning and teaching. Every detail in legends about the sun, moon, and stars, and even the specificity of animals plays a part in the perpetuation of values in their society. It is a transmission of cultural and moral values embedded within a story passed on from elders to children as a learning experience. There is a sophistication to storytelling in Indigenous American cultures that make it an educational art form as a way to socialize children to the moral norms of their community. It acts as a situated communication of values, showing us the world we live in, and the way we should behave in that world.

Morality and the allocation of resources

The notion of justice implies an impartial weighing of individual's needs. Early research focused on the contingency between conceptions of justice and Piagetian logical operations (Damon, 1975). In the realm or society and law, Helwig and Jasiobedzka (2001) asked adolescents to judge the acceptability of beneficial (e.g., a traffic law) and unjust laws (e.g., denial of education to a group of individuals). Park and Killen (2010) extended the notion of individuals' needs to include the needs of groups. In their study, they asked children to consider group members' desires (exclusion) that contrasted with an individual's desires (inclusion) in an exclusion scenario. The results demonstrated that children viewed exclusion based on personality as less wrong than exclusion based on group membership, such as gender and nationality. Studies have also been conducted on reactions to injustice. Astor (1994) for instance, studied the reactions of violent and nonviolent individuals to provoked and unprovoked violent behavior. In the provocation condition, violent, as opposed to nonviolent, children were more likely to focus on retribution as a means of restoring justice to the situation. Other research has focused on evaluating the universality of development of notions of distributive justice. Enright, Enright, and Lapsley (1981) for instance, found that middle-SES children focused more on individuals' needs when determining resource allocation in hypothetical scenarios than did low-SES children. Research within behavioral economics (Fehr et al., 2008, Almas et al., 2010[71]), indicates that even very young children strongly adhere to concepts of fairness and justice when distributing resources, with children moving from a focus on strict equality to a more nuanced sense of justice based on merit, with age.

Moral neuroscience

The advent and development of imaging technologies allows for an increasingly precise analysis of the neural bases of moral judgment, emotion, and behavior, allowing for both a structural and functional view of the organ that organizes what we perceive in the world and directs how we respond to that world. For instance, Blair (2007) has documented cortical regions that are differentially active when considering emotional expressions (e.g., fear) in neurotypical controls compared to participants with antisocial personality disorder. Decety and Michalska (2009) have identified neural circuits underlying empathic and sympathetic reactions to others' pain. In another fMRI study, one hundred and twenty-six participants aged between 4 and 37 years viewed scenarios depicting intentional versus accidental actions that caused harm/damage to people and objects. Morally, salient scenarios evoked stronger empathic sadness in young participants and were associated with enhanced activity in the amygdala, insula, and temporal poles. While intentional harm was evaluated as equally wrong across all participants, ratings of deserved punishments and malevolent intent gradually became more differentiated with age. Furthermore, age-related increase in activity was detected in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex in response to intentional harm to people, as well as increased functional connectivity between this region and the amygdala. This study provides evidence that moral reasoning involves a complex integration between affective and cognitive processes that gradually changes with age, and supports the view that negative emotion alerts the individual to the moral salience of a situation by bringing discomfort and thus can serve as an antecedent to moral judgment. Varying the description of the trustworthiness of a partner in an economic decision game, Delgado, Frank, and Phelps (2005) were able to show that neural regions associated with reward processing were affected by the extent to which the participant thought she could trust the partner.

Morality and society

The social domain theory had drawn the idea that there was a connection between the child's developing concepts of morality, and other domains of social knowledge, such as social convention. In a few tests Turiel had asked his test groups if they would hit their friend. They all said no because they would get in trouble. He then offered the idea that if they wouldn't get in trouble would they do it and most said no because they knew the other person would get hurt and that would be wrong. This test showed that society creates standards for us and teaches us the right and wrong from interactions with other people and how they follow societal rules.

Morality effect on adaptability

The development and internalization of morals at an early age has been shown to be predictive of future adaptive skills and future socialization skills. A study that tested children at 25, 38, and 52 months on internalization of their mothers and fathers rules, and the children's perception of their morals found that the children were more competent and better socialized if they were highly developed in the two areas tested. The relation between the child's history of empathy toward the mother and future socialization was also significant. Children who are empathic at a young age also, will find it easier to maintain relationship, both romantically and with friends and co-workers. This skill is extremely important in communicating with people and being able to understand others perspective. Children who have high internalization of the mother and father's rules are also more likely to perceive themselves being more moral later in childhood.

What is Kohlberg's theory of moral development?

The Theory of Moral Development is a very interesting subject that stemmed from Jean Piaget's theory of moral reasoning. Developed by psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg, this theory made us understand that morality starts from the early childhood years and can be affected by several factors.

The Theory of Moral Development is a very interesting subject that stemmed from Jean Piaget’s theory of moral reasoning. Developed by psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg, this theory made us understand that morality starts from the early childhood years and can be affected by several factors.

Morality can be developed either negatively or positively, depending on how an individual accomplishes the tasks before him during each stage of moral development across his lifespan.

History of the Theory

How did Kohlberg come up with the theory of moral development? All his ideas started from the research he performed with very young children as his subjects. He found out that children are faced with different moral issues, and their judgments on whether they are to act positively or negatively over each dilemma are heavily influenced by several factors. In each scenario that Kohlberg related to the children, he was not really asking whether or not the person in the situation is morally right or wrong, but he wanted to find out the reasons why these children think that the character is morally right or not.

Levels and Stages of Moral Development

Level 1: Preconventional Morality

The first level of morality, preconventional morality, can be further divided into two stages: obedience and punishment, and individualism and exchange.

Stage 1: Punishment- Obedience Orientation

Related to Skinner’s Operational Conditioning, this stage includes the use of punishment so that the person refrains from doing the action and continues to obey the rules. For example, we follow the law because we do not want to go to jail.

Stage 2: Instrumental Relativist Orientation

In this stage, the person is said to judge the morality of an action based on how it satisfies the individual needs of the doer. For instance, a person steals money from another person because he needs that money to buy food for his hungry children. In Kohlberg’s theory, the children tend to say that this action is morally right because of the serious need of the doer.

Level 2: Conventional Morality

The second level of morality involves the stages 3 and 4 of moral development. Conventional morality includes the society and societal roles in judging the morality of an action.

Stage 3: Good Boy-Nice Girl Orientation

In this stage, a person judges an action based on the societal roles and social expectations before him. This is also known as the “interpersonal relationships” phase. For example, a child gives away her lunch to a street peasant because she thinks doing so means being nice.

Stage 4: Law and Order Orientation

This stage includes respecting the authorities and following the rules, as well as doing a person’s duty. The society is the main consideration of a person at this stage. For instance, a policeman refuses the money offered to him under the table and arrests the offender because he believes this is his duty as an officer of peace and order.

Level 3: Postconventional Morality

The post-conventional morality includes stage 5 and stage 6. This is mainly concerned with the universal principles that relation to the action done.

Stage 5 : Social Contract Orientation

In this stage, the person is look at various opinions and values of different people before coming up with the decision on the morality of the action.

Stage 6 : Universal Ethical Principles Orientation

The final stage of moral reasoning, this orientation is when a person considers universally accepted ethical principles. The judgment may become innate and may even violate the laws and rules as the person becomes attached to his own principles of justice.

What is Kohlberg's stages of moral development?

Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development constitute an adaptation of a psychological theory originally conceived by the Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget.

Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development constitute an adaptation of a psychological theory originally conceived by the Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget. Kohlberg began work on this topic while a psychology graduate student at the University of Chicago in 1958, and expanded upon the theory throughout his life.

The theory holds that moral reasoning, the basis for ethical behavior, has six identifiable developmental stages, each more adequate at responding to moral dilemmas than its predecessor. Kohlberg followed the development of moral judgment far beyond the ages studied earlier by Piaget, who also claimed that logic and morality develop through constructive stages. Expanding on Piaget's work, Kohlberg determined that the process of moral development was principally concerned with justice, and that it continued throughout the individual's lifetime, a notion that spawned dialogue on the philosophical implications of such research.

The six stages of moral development are grouped into three levels of morality: pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional morality.

For his studies, Kohlberg relied on stories such as the Heinz dilemma, and was interested in how individuals would justify their actions if placed in similar moral dilemmas. He then analyzed the form of moral reasoning displayed, rather than its conclusion, and classified it as belonging to one of six distinct stages.

There have been critiques of the theory from several perspectives. Arguments include that it emphasizes justice to the exclusion of other moral values, such as caring; that there is such an overlap between stages that they should more properly be regarded as separate domains; or that evaluations of the reasons for moral choices are mostly post hoc rationalizations (by both decision makers and psychologists) of essentially intuitive decisions. Nevertheless, an entirely new field within psychology was created as a direct result of Kohlberg's theory, and according to Haggbloom et al.'s study of the most eminent psychologists of the 20th century, Kohlberg was the 16th most frequently cited in introductory psychology textbooks throughout the century, as well as the 30th most eminent overall.

Kohlberg's scale is about how people justify behaviors and his stages are not a method of ranking how moral someone's behavior is. There should, however, be a correlation between how someone scores on the scale and how they behave, and the general hypothesis is that moral behaviour is more responsible, consistent and predictable from people at higher levels.

What are the stages of moral development?

Lawrence Kohlberg expanded on the earlier work of cognitive theorist Jean Piaget to explain the moral development of children, which he believed follows a series of stages. Kohlberg defined three levels of moral development: preconventional, conventional, and postconventional. Each level has two distinct stages.

Stages

What are the six stages of moral development?

After obtaining hundreds of responses to moral dilemmas, one groundbreaking cognitive-developmental psychologist, Lawrence Kohlberg, proposed that the development of moral reasoning is characterized by a sequence of six stages grouped into three general levels of morality: preconventional, conventional, and

Kohlberg's six stages can be more generally grouped into three levels of two stages each: pre-conventional, conventional and post-conventional. Following Piaget's constructivist requirements for a stage model, as described in his theory of cognitive development, it is extremely rare to regress in stages—to lose the use of higher stage abilities. Stages cannot be skipped; each provides a new and necessary perspective, more comprehensive and differentiated than its predecessors but integrated with them.

Level 1 (Pre-Conventional)1. Obedience and punishment orientation

(How can I avoid punishment?)

2. Self-interest orientation

(What's in it for me?)

(Paying for a benefit)

Level 2 (Conventional)

3. Interpersonal accord and conformity

(Social norms)

(The good boy/girl attitude)

4. Authority and social-order maintaining orientation

(Law and order morality)

Level 3 (Post-Conventional)

5. Social contract orientation

6. Universal ethical principles

(Principled conscience)

The understanding gained in each stage is retained in later stages, but may be regarded by those in later stages as simplistic, lacking in sufficient attention to detail.

Pre-conventional

The pre-conventional level of moral reasoning is especially common in children, although adults can also exhibit this level of reasoning. Reasoners at this level judge the morality of an action by its direct consequences. The pre-conventional level consists of the first and second stages of moral development and is solely concerned with the self in an egocentric manner. A child with pre-conventional morality has not yet adopted or internalized society's conventions regarding what is right or wrong but instead focuses largely on external consequences that certain actions may bring.

In Stage one (obedience and punishment driven), individuals focus on the direct consequences of their actions on themselves. For example, an action is perceived as morally wrong because the perpetrator is punished. "The last time I did that I got spanked, so I will not do it again." The worse the punishment for the act is, the more "bad" the act is perceived to be. This can give rise to an inference that even innocent victims are guilty in proportion to their suffering. It is "egocentric", lacking recognition that others' points of view are different from one's own. There is "deference to superior power or prestige".

An example of obedience and punishment driven morality would be a child refusing to do something because it is wrong and that the consequences could result in punishment. For example, a child's classmate tries to dare the child to skip school. The child would apply obedience and punishment driven morality by refusing to skip school because he would get punished.

Stage two (self-interest driven) expresses the "what's in it for me" position, in which right behavior is defined by whatever the individual believes to be in their best interest but understood in a narrow way which does not consider one's reputation or relationships to groups of people. Stage two reasoning shows a limited interest in the needs of others, but only to a point where it might further the individual's own interests. As a result, concern for others is not based on loyalty or intrinsic respect, but rather a "You scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours" mentality. The lack of a societal perspective in the pre-conventional level is quite different from the social contract (stage five), as all actions at this stage have the purpose of serving the individual's own needs or interests. For the stage two theorist, the world's perspective is often seen as morally relative.

An example of self-interest driven is when a child is asked by his parents to do a chore. The child asks, "what's in it for me?" The parents offer the child an incentive by giving a child an allowance to pay them for their chores. The child is motivated by self-interest to do chores.

Conventional

The conventional level of moral reasoning is typical of adolescents and adults. To reason in a conventional way is to judge the morality of actions by comparing them to society's views and expectations. The conventional level consists of the third and fourth stages of moral development. Conventional morality is characterized by an acceptance of society's conventions concerning right and wrong. At this level an individual obeys rules and follows society's norms even when there are no consequences for obedience or disobedience. Adherence to rules and conventions is somewhat rigid, however, and a rule's appropriateness or fairness is seldom questioned.

In Stage three (good intentions as determined by social consensus), the self enters society by conforming to social standards. Individuals are receptive to approval or disapproval from others as it reflects society's views. They try to be a "good boy" or "good girl" to live up to these expectations, having learned that being regarded as good benefits the self. Stage three reasoning may judge the morality of an action by evaluating its consequences in terms of a person's relationships, which now begin to include things like respect, gratitude, and the "golden rule". "I want to be liked and thought well of; apparently, not being naughty makes people like me." Conforming to the rules for one's social role is not yet fully understood. The intentions of actors play a more significant role in reasoning at this stage; one may feel more forgiving if one thinks that "they mean well".

In Stage four (authority and social order obedience driven), it is important to obey laws, dictums, and social conventions because of their importance in maintaining a functioning society. Moral reasoning in stage four is thus beyond the need for individual approval exhibited in stage three. A central ideal or ideals often prescribe what is right and wrong. If one person violates a law, perhaps everyone would—thus there is an obligation and a duty to uphold laws and rules. When someone does violate a law, it is morally wrong; culpability is thus a significant factor in this stage as it separates the bad domains from the good ones. Most active members of society remain at stage four, where morality is still predominantly dictated by an outside force.

Post-conventional

The post-conventional level, also known as the principled level, is marked by a growing realization that individuals are separate entities from society, and that the individual's own perspective may take precedence over society's view; individuals may disobey rules inconsistent with their own principles. Post-conventional moralists live by their own ethical principles—principles that typically include such basic human rights as life, liberty, and justice. People who exhibit post-conventional morality view rules as useful but changeable mechanisms—ideally rules can maintain the general social order and protect human rights. Rules are not absolute dictates that must be obeyed without question. Because post-conventional individuals elevate their own moral evaluation of a situation over social conventions, their behavior, especially at stage six, can be confused with that of those at the pre-conventional level.

Some theorists have speculated that many people may never reach this level of abstract moral reasoning.

In Stage five (social contract driven), the world is viewed as holding different opinions, rights, and values. Such perspectives should be mutually respected as unique to each person or community. Laws are regarded as social contracts rather than rigid edicts. Those that do not promote the general welfare should be changed when necessary to meet "the greatest good for the greatest number of people". This is achieved through majority decision and inevitable compromise. Democratic government is ostensibly based on stage five reasoning.

In Stage six (universal ethical principles driven), moral reasoning is based on abstract reasoning using universal ethical principles. Laws are valid only insofar as they are grounded in justice, and a commitment to justice carries with it an obligation to disobey unjust laws. Legal rights are unnecessary, as social contracts are not essential for deontic moral action. Decisions are not reached hypothetically in a conditional way but rather categorically in an absolute way, as in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. This involves an individual imagining what they would do in another's shoes, if they believed what that other person imagines to be true. The resulting consensus is the action taken. In this way action is never a means but always an end in itself; the individual acts because it is right, and not because it avoids punishment, is in their best interest, expected, legal, or previously agreed upon. Although Kohlberg insisted that stage six exists, he found it difficult to identify individuals who consistently operated at that level.

Further stages

In his empirical studies of individuals throughout their life, Kohlberg observed that some had apparently undergone moral stage regression. This could be resolved either by allowing for moral regression or by extending the theory. Kohlberg chose the latter, postulating the existence of sub-stages in which the emerging stage has not yet been fully integrated into the personality. In particular Kohlberg noted a stage 4? or 4+, a transition from stage four to five, that shared characteristics of both. In this stage the individual is disaffected with the arbitrary nature of law and order reasoning; culpability is frequently turned from being defined by society to viewing society itself as culpable. This stage is often mistaken for the moral relativism of stage two, as the individual views those interests of society that conflict with their own as being relatively and morally wrong. Kohlberg noted that this was often observed in students entering college.

Kohlberg suggested that there may be a seventh stage—Transcendental Morality, or Morality of Cosmic Orientation—which linked religion with moral reasoning.[Kohlberg's difficulties in obtaining empirical evidence for even a sixth stage, however, led him to emphasize the speculative nature of his seventh stage.

Theoretical assumptions (philosophy)

Kohlberg's stages of moral development are based on the assumption that humans are inherently communicative, capable of reason, and possess a desire to understand others and the world around them. The stages of this model relate to the qualitative moral reasonings adopted by individuals, and so do not translate directly into praise or blame of any individual's actions or character. Arguing that his theory measures moral reasoning and not particular moral conclusions, Kohlberg insists that the form and structure of moral arguments is independent of the content of those arguments, a position he calls "formalism".

Kohlberg's theory centers on the notion that justice is the essential characteristic of moral reasoning. Justice itself relies heavily upon the notion of sound reasoning based on principles. Despite being a justice-centered theory of morality, Kohlberg considered it to be compatible with plausible formulations of deontology and eudaimonia.

Kohlberg's theory understands values as a critical component of the right. Whatever the right is, for Kohlberg, it must be universally valid across societies (a position known as "moral universalism"): there can be no relativism. Moreover, morals are not natural features of the world; they are prescriptive. Nevertheless, moral judgments can be evaluated in logical terms of truth and falsity.

According to Kohlberg, someone progressing to a higher stage of moral reasoning cannot skip stages. For example, an individual cannot jump from being concerned mostly with peer judgments (stage three) to being a proponent of social contracts (stage five). On encountering a moral dilemma and finding their current level of moral reasoning unsatisfactory, however, an individual will look to the next level. Realizing the limitations of the current stage of thinking is the driving force behind moral development, as each progressive stage is more adequate than the last. The process is therefore considered to be constructive, as it is initiated by the conscious construction of the individual, and is not in any meaningful sense a component of the individual's innate dispositions, or a result of past inductions.

Formal elements

Progress through Kohlberg's stages happens as a result of the individual's increasing competence, both psychologically and in balancing conflicting social-value claims. The process of resolving conflicting claims to reach an equilibrium is called "justice operation". Kohlberg identifies two of these justice operations: "equality", which involves an impartial regard for persons, and "reciprocity", which means a regard for the role of personal merit. For Kohlberg, the most adequate result of both operations is "reversibility", in which a moral or dutiful act within a particular situation is evaluated in terms of whether or not the act would be satisfactory even if particular persons were to switch roles within that situation (also known colloquially as "moral musical chairs").

Knowledge and learning contribute to moral development. Specifically important are the individual's "view of persons" and their "social perspective level", each of which becomes more complex and mature with each advancing stage. The "view of persons" can be understood as the individual's grasp of the psychology of other persons; it may be pictured as a spectrum, with stage one having no view of other persons at all, and stage six being entirely socio-centric. Similarly, the social perspective level involves the understanding of the social universe, differing from the view of persons in that it involves an appreciation of social norms.

Examples of applied moral dilemmas

Kohlberg established the Moral Judgement Interview in his original 1958 dissertation. During the roughly 45-minute tape recorded semi-structured interview, the interviewer uses moral dilemmas to determine which stage of moral reasoning a person uses. The dilemmas are fictional short stories that describe situations in which a person has to make a moral decision. The participant is asked a systemic series of open-ended questions, like what they think the right course of action is, as well as justifications as to why certain actions are right or wrong. The form and structure of these replies are scored and not the content; over a set of multiple moral dilemmas an overall score is derived.

A dilemma that Kohlberg used in his original research was the druggist's dilemma: Heinz Steals the Drug In Europe.

Criticisms

One criticism of Kohlberg's theory is that it emphasizes justice to the exclusion of other values, and so may not adequately address the arguments of those who value other moral aspects of actions. Carol Gilligan has argued that Kohlberg's theory is overly androcentric. Kohlberg's theory was initially developed based on empirical research using only male participants; Gilligan argued that it did not adequately describe the concerns of women. Kohlberg stated that women tend to get stuck at level 3, focusing on details of how to maintain relationships and promote the welfare of family and friends. Men are likely to move on to the abstract principles, and thus have less concern with the particulars of who is involved. Consistent with this observation, Gilligan's theory of moral development does not focus on the value of justice. She developed an alternative theory of moral reasoning based on the ethics of caring. Critics such as Christina Hoff Sommers, however, argued that Gilligan's research is ill-founded, and that no evidence exists to support her conclusion.

Kohlberg's stages are not culturally neutral, as demonstrated by its application to a number of different cultures. Although they progress through the stages in the same order, individuals in different cultures seem to do so at different rates. Kohlberg has responded by saying that although different cultures do indeed inculcate different beliefs, his stages correspond to underlying modes of reasoning, rather than to those beliefs.

Another criticism of Kohlberg’s theory is that people frequently demonstrate significant inconsistency in their moral judgements. This often occurs in moral dilemmas involving drinking and driving and business situations where participants have been shown to reason at a subpar stage, typically using more self-interest driven reasoning (i.e. stage two) than authority and social order obedience driven reasoning (i.e. stage four). Kohlberg’s theory is generally considered to be incompatible with inconsistencies in moral reasoning. Carpendale has argued that Kohlberg’s theory should be modified to focus on the view that the process of moral reasoning involves integrating varying perspectives of a moral dilemma rather than simply fixating on applying rules. This view would allow for inconsistency in moral reasoning since individuals may be hampered by their inability to consider different perspectives. Krebs and Denton have also attempted to modify Kohlberg’s theory to account for a multitude of conflicting findings, but eventually concluded that the theory is not equipped to take into consideration how most individuals make moral decisions in their everyday lives.

Other psychologists have questioned the assumption that moral action is primarily a result of formal reasoning. Social intuitionists such as Jonathan Haidt, for example, argue that individuals often make moral judgments without weighing concerns such as fairness, law, human rights, or abstract ethical values. Thus the arguments analyzed by Kohlberg and other rationalist psychologists could be considered post hoc rationalizations of intuitive decisions; moral reasoning may be less relevant to moral action than Kohlberg's theory suggests.

Continued relevance

Kohlberg's body of work on the stages of moral development has been utilized by others working in the field. One example is the Defining Issues Test ( DIT) created in 1979 by James Rest, originally as a pencil-and-paper alternative to the Moral Judgement Interview. Heavily influenced by the six-stage model, it made efforts to improve the validity criteria by using a quantitative test, the Likert scale, to rate moral dilemmas similar to Kohlberg's. It also used a large body of Kohlbergian theory such as the idea of "post-conventional thinking". In 1999 the DIT was revised as the DIT-2; the test continues to be used in many areas where moral testing is required, such as divinity, politics, and medicine.

What is a moral behavior?

Prosocial behavior involves caring, helping, sharing and volunteering. Morality refers to one's beliefs about right and wrong and involves traits such as honesty, fairness and responsibility. Children internalize the prosocial and moral behaviors they observe from others.

What are the moral development of a child?

Morality is our ability to learn the difference between right or wrong and understand how to make the right choices. ... Children's experiences at home, the environment around them, and their physical, cognitive, emotional, and social skills influence their developing sense of right vs. wrong.

HOW TO DEVELOP MORAL VALUES WITHIN CHILDREN?

Raising a Moral Child

It's tough to raise kids of solid character in today's social environment--but it can be done.

These are troubling times in which to raise good kids. And we don't need researchers to share fancy statistics to prove it to us; we all know it. There are many reasons, but here's the simplest one: our kids are being literally bombarded with an unremitting assault of immoral messages from sources such as media, television, movies, the Internet, music, and peers, and it's taking a toll on their moral growth.

Experts also tell us one way kids learn character traits best is by watching others do things right. Just recall a few incidents your child has seen lately on national television. Here's a sampling: professional baseball players spitting in umpire's faces. Hockey players clubbing their competitors and not being held accountable. Absolute raunchiness on daytime talk shows. Unsavory business practices by large corporations. Elected government officials admitting to adultery, drug use, and bribery....The breakdown of appropriate role models is not the only reason character is declining, but it certainly is one. And when combined with the other socially toxic influences, it makes it all the more difficult to bring up decent kids.

That's not to say most kids aren't caring and moral. I'm convinced the majority of them are. My belief in children's basic goodness grows each time I watch them gently comforting others or read about students unselfishly volunteering or hear stories of kids putting their own needs aside to help others less fortunate. It's just that our kids don't hear as much as they should about the compassionate, humane gestures people do for others. Instead, too often they are exposed to images of hate, cruelty, violence, and plain vulgarity.

So can we overcome the forces perpetuating hateful, fearful, uncaring images and still raise kids with caring hearts and decent souls? It's the question I am asked the most frequently in my workshops by hundreds of parents and teachers each year, and I'm sure it has crossed your mind. And the answer I give them and now you is a resounding: Yes! Parents can make a difference on their kids moral lives--and it can be significant enough to have long-term effects.

Why am I so certain? Because years of research confirms that the traits of strong character such as caring, respect, self-control, sharing, empathy, tolerance, perseverance, giving, comforting, fairness, and conscience are all learned. And that means we can teach them to our children and in doing so nurture the qualities that enhance their moral growth.

What do parents have to do with all this? Plenty! After all, you are your child's first and most powerful moral teacher. Here are five tips from my book "Building Moral Intelligence" to use with your own child:

1. Expect moral behavior. If you want your child to act morally, then expect and demand moral behaviors from him or her.

2. Use teachable moments. Look for moral issues to talk about as they come up; your child can hear your moral beliefs, and you can assess your child's moral reasoning then gently stretch him to the next level.

3. Reinforce moral behavior. Catch your child acting morally and acknowledge her good behavior by describing what she did right and why you appreciate it.

4. Model moral behavior. Make sure that your words and actions reflect the values you want to teach your child--honesty, kindness, patience, and forgiveness, to name a few. Talk about what you did and why you did it.

5. Monitor media consumption. Take an active stand against influences toxic to your child's moral development, such as certain TV shows, movies, music, video games, and websites. Then plainly explain your concerns to your child, set stands, and then stick to them.

We can no longer sit back and hope our kids grow up to become caring, decent, human beings. We must deliberately and passionately teach and model the traits of strong character so they really can become the best people they can be.

Instilling Values in Our Children

by Gene Taylor

One of the most challenging tasks confronting parents is that of instilling within their children a proper set of values. This makes parenthood a tremendous responsibility for such values will provide them with motivation and guidance throughout their lives (Prov. 22:6). Parents should neither neglect this challenge nor start too early to accomplish it.

The General Basis for All Values

There is no better basis for selection of values upon which to base our own or our children's lives than the two principles Jesus suggested in Matthew 22 as the great commandments: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind" (v. 37). "You shall love your neighbor as your self" (v. 39).

These two principles form the basis of the Law and the instruction of the prophets and a proper set of values which will enable us and our children to live profitably before God and with our fellow man. Using them as a basis will enable us and our children to meet the lofty ideals God has set for us. But we must first be living by them ourselves before we ever attempt to teach them to our children.

It is important to reinforce our teaching with example. As our children see these values exemplified in our lives, they will want to duplicate them in their own lives.

Some Values We Should Instill Within Our Children

Children ought to have a proper perspective on the value of education. A well-rounded education is important, yet, knowledge of the word of God is most valuable. Sadly, some Christians instill within their children the concept that worldly attainment and knowledge is more valuable than spiritual knowledge. During the school year Bible class teachers are confronted with parental encouraged absences from Bible study with the excuse, "Junior just had to get his homework." Such permissiveness on the part of parents teaches children that their earthly education is of more value than a spiritual one. Children need to learn that "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge" (Prov. 1:7).

Children ought to be taught to select careers which will facilitate faithfulness to God. Children must learn to recognize the importance of the decision of what one chooses to do with his/her life. Congregations everywhere suffer because too many who claim to be Christians become involved in the pursuit of a career and leave no time for serving God. Church growth cannot help but suffer. But the biggest problem is that one who focuses more on the "here and now" will soon be drawn away by it and their love for it and become apostate.

Parents must instill within children the importance of building their future as God's servants. Nearly all parents plan for the secular futures of their children but how much emphasis is placed on preparation for their futures in the kingdom of God? While many encourage their children to be doctors, lawyers, etc., how many encourage their children to plan on being deacons, elders, preachers and Bible class teachers. Do your children see in you a high regard for service to God and the work of the church or do they see parents who are apathetic and uninvolved in the good works one is to be doing in Christ (Eph. 2:10; Titus 2:14)?

How to Instill Proper Values in Children

1. Begin regular spiritual training in their first year of life and continue consistently through all their developing years (Prov. 22:6).

2. Demonstrate to them at all times that God is the most important thing in your life.

3. Let their earliest memories include daily readings of Bible stories and frequent discussions of the word of God.

4. Give them their own Bible even before they can read. Have them begin a lifetime habit of regular memorization and review of important Bible verses.

5. Teach them to pray.

6. Have regular "devotional" times as a family and speak often to your children of the joys of serving God.

7. Spend the necessary time to be the main spiritual teacher of your children -- more so than the preacher or Bible class teacher, etc. Remember, you have the primary responsibility of teaching your children the ways of the Lord.

8. Teach them that lying is one of the worst things they could ever do.

9. Train them early in principles of modesty.

10. Keep their speech pure by not allowing yourself or them to ever use profanity.

11. Help keep their minds pure by monitoring their reading and viewing materials and personal friendships closely in their early years (1 Cor. 15:33).

12. Be responsible enough to bring up the subject of sex and morality with your children. They will either learn about it from you or from the world.

13. Instill in your children a strong desire to save themselves for the one who will someday be their mate.

14. Reinforce your moral teaching by setting specific guidelines for dating.

15. Train your children to date only those who are morally upright and urge them to plan on marrying a Christian.

16. Teach them the virtue of work by giving them regular jobs and responsibilities around the home.

17. Train them to never get too busy with secular pursuits to do something for the Lord's cause.

18. Encourage them often to plan the future of their lives to include a "career" for Christ (Bible class teacher, song leader, preacher, deacon, elder, elder's wife, deacon's wife, etc.).

19. Build a family life in such a way that "home" is a happy place.

20. Be the kind of child your heavenly Father would have you to be. You will not only be pleasing God but will be the kind of parent who will be able to place within the hearts of your children the principles and values of Scripture.

Conclusion

If we want our children to grow into faithful, active Christians, we must begin with our examples, reinforcing them with our teaching and encouragement and then continue, prayerfully, to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Eph. 6:4).