Tingkat dan Tahapan Perkembangan Moralitas
2011-08-06 22:23:33 / by Administrator - (4) komentar

Bayi tidak memiliki hirarki nilai dan suara hati. Bayi tergolong nonmoral, tidak bermoral maupun tidak amoral, dalam artian bahwa perilakunya tidak dibimbing nilai-nilai moral. Lambat laun ia akan mempelajari kode moral dari orang tua dan kemudian dari guru-guru dan teman-teman bermain dan juga ia belajar pentingnya mengikuti kode-kode moral.

Belajar berperilaku moral yang diterima oleh sekitarnya merupakan proses yang lama dan lambat. Tetapi dasar-dasarnya diletakkan dalam masa bayi dan berdasarkan dasar-dasar inilah bayi membangun kode moral moral yang membimbing perilakunya bila telah menjadi besar nantinya.

Karena keterbatasan kecerdasannya, bayi menilai besar atau salahnya suatu tindakan menurut kesenangan atau kesakitan yang ditimbulkannya dan bukan menurut baik dan buruknya efek suatu tindakan terhadap orang lain. karena itu, bayi menganggap suatu tindakan salah hanya bila ia merasakan sendiri akibat buruknya. Bayi tidak memiliki rasa bersalah karena kurang memiliki norma yang pasti tentang benar dan salah. Bayi tidak merasa bersalah kalau mengambil benda-benda milik orang lain karena tidak memiliki konsep tentang hak milik pribadi.

Bayi berada dalam tahap perkembangan moral yang oleh Piaget (Hurlock, 1980) disebut moralitas dengan paksaan (preconventional level) yang merupakan tahap pertama dari tiga tahapan perkembangan moral. Tahap ini berakhir sampai usia tujuh sampai delapan tahun dan ditandai oleh kepatuhan otomatis kepada kepatuhan otomatis kepada aturan-aturan tanpa penalaran atau penilaian.

Apabila awal masa kanak-kanak akan berakhir, konsep moral anak tidak lagi sesempit dan sekhusus sebelumnya, anak yang lebih besar lambat laun memperluas konsep social sehingga mencakup situasi apa saja, lebih daripada hanya situasi khusus. Di samping itu, anak yang lebih besar menemukan bahwa kelompok sosial terlibat dalam berbagai tingkat kesungguhan pada pelbagai macam perbuatan. Pengetahuan ini kemudian digabungkan dalam konsep moral.

Menurut Piaget, antara usia lima dan dua belas tahun konsep anak mengenai keadilan sudah berubah. Pengertian yang kaku dan keras tentang benar dan salah, yang dipelajari dari orang tua, berubah dan anak mulai memperhitungkan keadaan-keadaan khusus di sekitar pelanggaran moral. Jadi menurut Piaget, relativisme moral menggantikan moral yang kaku. Misalnya bagi anak lima tahun, berbohong selalu buruk, sedangkan anak yang lebih besar bahwa dalam beberapa situasi, berbohong dibenarkan, dan oleh karena itu, berbohong tidak selalu buruk.

Kohlberg memperluas teori Piaget dan menamakan tingkat kedua dari perkembangan moral akhir masa kanak-kanak sebagai tingkat moralitas konvensional (conventional level) atau moralitas dari aturan-aturan dan penyesuaian konvensional. Dalam tahap pertama dari tingkat ini yang disebutkan Kohlberg moralitas anak baik, anak mengikuti peraturan untuk mengambil hati orang lain dan untuk mempertahankan hubungan-hubungan yang baik. Dalam tahap kedua, Kohlberg mengatakan bahwa kalau kelompok social menerima peraturan-peraturan yang sesuai bagi semua anggota kelompok, ia harus menyesuaikan diri dengan peraturan untuk menghindari penolakan kelompok dan celaan.

Tahap perkembangan ketiga, moralitas pasca konvensional (postconventional). Dalam tahap ini, moralitas didasarkan pada rasa hormat kepada orang lain dan bukan pada keinginan yang bersifat pribadi.

Mungkin anda juga suka membaca artikel terkait berikut

  2. TOEPL: Solusi Pembelajaran Geografi yang Unik dan Imajinatif bagi Tunanetra
  3. Perilaku Konstruktif Tentukan Masa Depan Anak
  4. Mengembalikan Senyum Anak-anak Sumbar
  5. Berponsel Saat Hamil Bikin Anak Rusak
  6. Inilah Nasib Ratusan Tahanan Anak-anak Palestina
  8. Perkembangan Emosi Anak
  9. Balita Sensitif terhadap Angka Bisa Lebih Jago Matematika
  13. Kumpulan Makalah Tentang Emosi, Kognitif, Moral, Gifted, Psikomatik. Bag 1
  14. Perkembangan Prilaku Kognitif
  15. Anak berkebutuhan khusus

Komentar tentang artikel ini

JUL 25 2013

By UMmBQX9I8u Such an _a href="http://hgrcolurkd.com"_imsipserve_/a_ answer! You\_ve beaten us all with that!

di isi jam : 16:23:52

JUL 24 2013

By NweYGUHU Interesting, MC, how the only sons and daughters that seem to matetr to you are American. When did you sit in judgement on the entire population of the countries we bomb and declare them guilty down to the last infant? When did they stop being sons and daughters and become excusable collateral damage? My father taught me the same thing George\_s did you\_re responsible for everything your bullet does. He also taught me that while in war it\_s a good idea to kill the other bastard before he kills you, that doesn\_t extend to indiscriminate slaughter. He taught me to see the enemy as being just as patriotic as you, so that you don\_t make the mistake of turning battles into massacres. He taught me to lead by example.It seems the fathers of our current leaders never taught their children those things. It\_s a crying shame. http://apxaoasysk.com [url=http://qgrizknxnyd.com]qgrizknxnyd[/url] [link=http://vjbtyqd.com]vjbtyqd[/link]

di isi jam : 07:04:03

JUL 22 2013

By oNpZtfLPj0f _a href="http://dxonyutmya.com"_Arlcties_/a_ like this are an example of quick, helpful answers.

di isi jam : 21:12:02

JUL 22 2013

By XBunhOuX Presumably you’re being sarcastic, bescaue if you’re not, you have a very peculiar definition of “moral agency”.People define it differently. I\_m not defining it here, I\_m saying it needs to be defined. If a chimp mother leaves her baby to die, how is that different from a human mother who leaves her baby to die? I\_m not saying they are the same, I am asking how are they different?\_ We have to ask this question seriously if we are to deal with ethical questions seriously. Intelligence sounds good, but being intelligent doesn\_t imply one is not a psychopath (ie has empathy) nor does it imply an emotional connection (eg familial.) I would say both of these are more fundamental to our sense of morality\_ than mere logical assessment, which a computer can do.Shermer\_s ask\_ example is pretty superficial. Hopefully he will spend some time on this, and he\_ll do better than Harris.I do hope that first sentence is sarcasm.Just bescaue that is where we start, doesn\_t mean that is all there is. Some species protect their young, others do not. Caring about one\_s young is a sign of rudimentary morality, as it shows consideration for others. I think the best arguments for a human\_ morality are centred around the fact we are social animals. That doesn\_t address the is/ought problem. One can still ask whether we should follow our instincts in any particular situation, but if you are going to try and create a naturalistic type of morality, I would say that is a good starting place. We tend to have compassion for others to lesser and lesser degrees in ever expanding circles of involvement. Self family community nation species companion species mammals We don’t know the real facts of moral philosophy now, but it doesn’t follow from that that there are no real facts.Since I can\_t even conceive of what a moral fact\_ would look like, I\_d say it falls in the area of extraordinary claim. What makes something a moral fact , as opposed to simply wishful thinking ? People seem to fall into Platonic thinking, way too easily, when it comes to ethics. As if moral facts\_ are actual things. I see no reason to think they are anything more than generalizations.i think you’re fully aware that your tribal instincts are not legitimate morality. I care about my family and friends more than other random people. I don\_t feel bad about that. And I think this is true of most people as well. Does that make me immoral? It is easy to talk about morality when you have nothing to lose. This is, I think, the problem with a lot of moral systems, they are conceptual things that don\_t reflect what people actually see as right and wrong. It ends up being more about trying to convince people about what they *should* think is right and wrong.philosophy has straightened us out on the matter of slavery and justice.I don\_t agree. Both the Ancient Greeks and Enlightenment Europe had advanced understandings of Ethics, and both were slave owning societies. I think the aversion to slavery has more to do with advances in technology. Lower infant mortality means cheap labour, and industrialization means machines(fossil fuels) can do more of the unskilled labour. To maintain our standard of living we simply don\_t need slaves\_ anymore in the west. In fact, slavery in the recent European\_ sense is no longer cost effective, except for sex slavery, which is why human trafficking is still a serious problem. And really in the west, we have just farmed out alot of the menial jobs overseas. The brutal reality of life is more hidden from us, but it didn\_t go away bescaue our philosophy changed. This dislocation makes it easy to be self-righteous, but hard not to be hypocritical. The real thing that has changed in terms of ethics is not advances in moral philosophy, but rather the categories of who gets considered a person. Race/sex is no longer the standard rather, where you are born(citizenship), and what resources(or capital) you control is.Once we determine how to determine right and wrong theoretically, then we can use science make that theory practically applicable. But alone, science simply can’t do it.I agree with this. I just think right and wrong are not about theory so much as feelings. Moral theory is just a logical formalization for the intuitive feelings we have. Compassion, fear, love, hate all tell us what is right and wrong. The reason we can\_t agree on moral facts\_ is that we have these emotions to differing (and sometimes self-contradicting) degrees about different things, which means our formalizations, our moral logic, will also differ. Left wingers tend to focus on compassion for their ideology, right wingers on maintaining the status quo, they *fear* of losing what they have. So, I can use logic to help me be more consistent about what *I feel* is moral but more than that eh, I don\_t think so. If Shermer could formulate something better, I would be very impressed.Bottom line, I think anyone who wants to seriously address moral issues must address these things on a very basic level. Not just talk about what is obvious to them.

di isi jam : 00:49:38

Masukkan Komentar Anda :

Website Tanpa http://


Our Facebook



Ad Here




Donasi untuk Rakyat Palestine
Donasi Rumah Zakat
Dompet Duafa
Donasi Unicef Indonesia


Last Comment
under construction