Heteronomous Vs. Autonomous Morality In Childhood Development

Heteronomous morality vs. autonomous morality

Piaget outlined two forms of morality that he believed were most common in childhood, including heteronomous and autonomous. 

Heteronomous morality (moral realism)

Heteronomous morality refers to the model of morality that children comprehend from an outside source. During this stage, children think morality comes from listening to and obeying what people in authority say. This stage of morality comes to fruition around the age of six to ten years. 

A child going through the phase of moral realism may accept the rules created by authority figures and realize that if they break the rules, they will experience consequences. This situation is known as immanent justice. How severe the consequence is may correlate to how severe the broken rule is, also called expiatory punishment.

During this phase, few children question the rules, instead thinking they are absolute. They don't realize that societal rules can evolve with time. A child may believe that "bad" behavior is bad because of the consequences. They may not realize that some unhealthy behaviors come from positive intentions. They may also believe there is no difference between an accident and a deliberate action.

Autonomous morality (moral relativism) 

Autonomous morality is based on the rules of the individual or an "inside" source. Children begin to understand that there may not be an absolute right or wrong in this stage. In some cases, motivation and intentions make an action justifiable.

Moral relativism often develops around the ages of nine to ten when a child has gained the ability to see other people's moral views. For example, a child can learn to look at the circumstances surrounding one's actions and determine whether the action was justifiable based on their beliefs. 

In this stage, children realize that adults follow the rules of society to the best of their abilities but also have their own moral code. They may think that some of society's rules should be changed because they are unjust or that some actions should be illegal when they are legal. These changes in belief come from moral relativism. 

Why does moral relativism develop?

Moral relativism occurs when a child realizes that rules aren't infallible. Rules can change, be implemented fairly or unfairly, or be put in place to prevent chaos. In some cases, during this stage, children may change the rules of the games they play to mimic the patterns they see in adults. For instance, if they play a board game, they may implement their own house rules, changing rules that they think are unfair or could better serve them in another way. 

During this stage, children begin to consider an individual's motives in addition to their actions. For example, a child deliberately breaking a dish to be destructive because they're angry differs from a child trying to make food and accidentally breaking a dish. In some cases, positive intentions mean lesser or no punishment.

Can children understand morals?

According to Piaget, children quickly learn to discern the difference between objectivity and subjectivity. They may realize that their parents aren't infallible but ordinary people trying to raise them with rules based on their life experiences and beliefs. 

Their perception of actions that are seen as immoral may change with nuance. For example, children are often taught that all forms of lying are negative. However, the concept of a "white lie" exists, where you lie not to hurt someone. For example, you may tell someone they look attractive when you don't think they are to avoid hurting their feelings. Children may notice that some lying might keep them and others safe in this situation. However, whether this type of lie is positive or helpful is subjective. 

During this stage, intent is also analyzed in the context of lying. When a person lies, you may label them a liar. However, you can also try to determine whether the person might not have meant to lie, is misinformed, or has a bias in the situation. Lying may be labeled immoral when it betrays someone's trust or is done out of self-interest. 

Learning about consequences in childhood

As children learn to understand morals, their ideas of punishment become scrutinized. At first, a child may see the purpose of punishment to hurt them for their actions. However, as they age, they may realize that the intent isn't to hurt but to try to make the child realize the consequences of their actions in hopes they will not repeat the undesired action. 

With the concept of justice, a child starts to see that justice is imperfect. Not all guilty people are punished. In some cases, the blame may be shifted onto an innocent person. During this stage, the idea of group punishment (when a group is punished for the actions of one individual) is scrutinized as well. For example, a child might notice that the entire class is punished when one child misbehaves. The idea of punishing everyone for the actions of one may be seen as ridiculous to a child and many adults. 

Understanding moral issues from a child’s perspective

Piaget was interested in three constructs determining how a child complies with the rules and makes decisions guided by a sense of right and wrong. A child's understanding of these constructs often changes with age. 

Rules

When a child tries to understand the rules, they may ask the adults in their lives who they see as authority figures for guidance. They might ask where the rules come from, who makes them, and if they can be changed. These questions pique children's curiosity and pave the way for understanding societal norms of rules and morality. 

Moral responsibility

As a child tries to understand the rules, they learn how to understand the responsibility that comes with them. They may question who should be blamed for a challenging situation, why the situation is labeled "bad," and what the outcome of the behavior means. 

For example, if a child steals a biscuit from another child, they might wonder whether the act is wrong or wrong because it hurts the other child. In addition, a child may try to discern the difference between deliberate and accidental wrongdoing when attempting to interpret moral responsibility.

Justice

In the third stage, the child considers the concept of justice itself. They may question if the punishment fits the crime. Often, a child may receive a grounding they feel is too excessive for what they did or feel like they got off easy for what they did. Meanwhile, they may see others getting away with similar behaviors and wonder if others do not have the same consequences.