The heteronomous morality it is a form adopted by the ethics of children during a stage of their cognitive development. It is based on the acceptance of external rules as if they were absolute, instead of developing a code of conduct of its own as it happens in the following stages.
Heteronomous morality in this context was first studied by Piaget. His interest was based on discovering why children acted as they did. Thus, three main questions regarding ethics were raised: how do children understand norms, what do they think about individual responsibility, and what conception do they have of justice.
The study of the development of morality has preoccupied philosophers, psychologists, and researchers throughout history. Understanding how it arises and changes in children can help us understand our own ethics, and the way in which moral norms appear in adults.
Article index
Heteronomous morality is the one that appears when the child begins to reflect on the world, and is maintained until approximately 9 years of age.
During this time, the little ones do not question the validity of the norms and ways of behaving that they have inherited from their parents, but they blindly accept them.
Also known as moral realism, this way of seeing the world appears due to some characteristics of children. Because the ability to put oneself in the shoes of others has not yet appeared during childhood, children cannot understand other people's motives for breaking some rules.
On the other hand, at this time they are still not able to question the words of their parents or other adults whom they take as a reference..
On the contrary, they tend to blindly accept what they are told. This is because they see their elders as infallible; the idea that they could be wrong simply does not enter their head.
These two ways of thinking of young children are some of the keys to understanding why heteronomous morality arises. When old enough is reached, as thought structures change, rules are no longer seen as inflexible and absolute and young people begin to question the morality they have inherited..
Heteronomous morality differs in many respects from autonomous morality. The latter develops from approximately 10 years of age. Next we will see what are the main points that characterize moral realism.
The main characteristic of heteronomous morality is the automatic acceptance of all norms and beliefs that come from the outside, especially if they are imposed by an authority figure.
Because parents have a natural power over their children when they are young, their words are not questioned by those under the age of 10 or so. On the contrary, everything that is said by adults will be taken as an absolute and immovable rule..
Contrary to autonomous morality, which is concerned with whether an action is ethically correct or not, children who reason following heteronomous morality are primarily concerned with not receiving any punishment.
Thus, during this stage of development, children understand that if they break a rule or do something "bad", there will be immediate negative consequences..
Therefore, the more severe the punishment, the worse an action will be seen. This way of thinking does not take into account the possible motives of the person who committed the offense.
Punishment, on the other hand, is seen during this stage as something automatic and natural. Young children understand justice as a kind of revenge, as an "eye for an eye".
Therefore, if someone does something wrong, someone who reasons according to heteronomous morality will believe that they will inevitably be punished. The possibility of getting rid of any negative consequences does not enter his head.
The main measure of the seriousness of an offense during the age of heteronomous morality is not the intention behind it. On the contrary, children believe that something is morally more reprehensible if more damage has been done.
For example, a 7-year-old may see the accidental breaking of a high-value vase much worse than the intentional theft of a small object such as an eraser..
This is so because, not being able to put themselves in the other person's shoes, they cannot assess their intentions or the weight they have in what they do..
The punishment, on the other hand, must be proportional to the damage produced regardless of whether what happened was intentional or not. This changes once autonomous morality appears, at which point the intention begins to be also relevant for the interpretation of the facts..
Below we will see several examples of reasoning described by Piaget in his research on heteronomous morality..
“Juan was playing in the street when his mother called him to go to dinner. When he entered the kitchen, he accidentally hit a tray that had eight cups on it, breaking them all by accident..
On the other hand, Luis came home hungry after school. Although her mother told her not to eat before dinner, she climbed on the counter to steal a cookie. While he was upstairs, he dropped a cup and broke it. Who has behaved worse of the two? "
For a person who uses autonomous morality, it is evident that Luis has acted worse because he has disobeyed the rules, while Juan just had an accident.
However, a child who reasons according to heteronomous morality would punish Juan more severely, because the consequences of his actions are worse (he broke eight cups instead of one).
“Miguel went to the supermarket, stole three apples and ran away. However, a policeman saw him and went after him.
To try to flee from the agent, Miguel crossed a bridge, with the bad luck that the wood broke and the boy fell into the water. Would the bridge have been broken if Miguel hadn't stolen the apples? "
A child who reasons according to heteronomous morality will believe that the bridge was broken because Miguel had acted badly and deserved punishment. In this way, he attributes a non-existent causality to two situations that really have nothing to do with each other..
Yet No Comments