2. 职称英语
  3. The age at which young children begin to make moral discriminations about ha

The age at which young children begin to make moral discriminations about ha

游客2024-10-17  53
问题     The age at which young children begin to make moral discriminations about harmful actions committed against themselves or others has been the focus of recent research into the moral development of children. Piaget in his hypothesis stated that because of their immaturity, children under age seven do not take into account the intentions of a person committing accidental or deliberate harm, but rather simply assign punishment for on the basis of the magnitude of the negative consequences caused. According to Piaget, children under age seven occupy the first stage of moral development, which is characterized by moral absolutism (rules made by authorities must be obeyed) and imminent justice (if rules are broken, punishment will be meted out). Until young children mature, their moral judgments are based entirely on the effect rather than the cause of a transgression. However, in recent research, Keasey found that six-year-old children not only distinguish between accidental and intentional harm, but also judge intentional harm as haughtier, regardless of the amount of damage produced. Both of these findings seem to indicate that children, at an earlier age than Piaget claimed, advance into the second stage of moral development, moral autonomy, in which they accept social rules but view them as more arbitrary than do children in the first stage.
    Keasey’s research raises two key questions for developmental psychologists about children under age seven: do they recognize justifications for harmful actions, and do they make distinctions between harmful acts that are preventable and those acts that have unforeseen harmful consequences? Studies indicate that justifications excusing harmful actions might include public duty, self defense, and provocation. For example, Nesdale and Rule concluded that children were capable of considering whether or not an aggressor’s action was justified by public duty: five year olds reacted very differently to "Bonnie wrecks Ann’s pretend house" depending on whether Bonnie did it "so somebody won’t fall over it" or because Bonnie wanted "to make Ann fell bad. " Thus, a child of five begins to understand that certain harmful actions, though intentional, can be justified; the constraints of moral absolutism no longer solely guide their judgments.
    Psychologists have determined that during kindergarten children learn to make distinctions involving harm. Darley observed that among acts involving unintentional harm, six-year-old children just entering kindergarten could not differentiate between foreseeable, and thus preventable, harm and unforeseeable harm for which the perpetrator cannot be blamed. Seven months later, however, Darley found that these same children could make both distinctions, thus demonstrating that they had become morally autonomous. [br] Why do five-year-olds react differently to "Bonnie wrecks Ann’s pretend house"?
选项 A、Because they occupy the stage of moral autonomy.
B、Because they can distinguish between harmful and harmless acts.
C、Because they are capable of justify an aggressor’s action.
D、Because they realize that some of the intentionals are excusable.
答案 D
解析 文中第二段举了“伯尼毁坏了安的房子”这个例子，并说根据毁坏者的不同动机，五岁的孩子对该句话的反应完全不同。接着又总结说：因此，五岁的孩子开始理解到，有些伤害行为，即使是故意的，也可以原谅。综上，[D]为答案。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3805821.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)