PrepTest 94+, Section 2, Question 6
Some psychologists claim that empathic responses are forms of moral behavior. Having observed that young children who witness another's distress respond by expressing sadness and offering help, these psychologists believe that moral behavior begins early in life. A second group of psychologists claims that empathic response is not, by itself, moral behavior and that in order to count as moral, behavior must be based on a clear understanding of moral principles and a certain degree of moral reasoning skill. On the basis of children's unsophisticated verbal responses to hypothetical moral dilemmas, these psychologists conclude that children lack the degree of moral reasoning skill necessary for their behavior, however compassionate, to be considered moral.
Some psychologists claim that empathic responses are forms of moral behavior. Having observed that young children who witness another's distress respond by expressing sadness and offering help, these psychologists believe that moral behavior begins early in life. A second group of psychologists claims that empathic response is not, by itself, moral behavior and that in order to count as moral, behavior must be based on a clear understanding of moral principles and a certain degree of moral reasoning skill. On the basis of children's unsophisticated verbal responses to hypothetical moral dilemmas, these psychologists conclude that children lack the degree of moral reasoning skill necessary for their behavior, however compassionate, to be considered moral.
Some psychologists claim that empathic responses are forms of moral behavior. Having observed that young children who witness another's distress respond by expressing sadness and offering help, these psychologists believe that moral behavior begins early in life. A second group of psychologists claims that empathic response is not, by itself, moral behavior and that in order to count as moral, behavior must be based on a clear understanding of moral principles and a certain degree of moral reasoning skill. On the basis of children's unsophisticated verbal responses to hypothetical moral dilemmas, these psychologists conclude that children lack the degree of moral reasoning skill necessary for their behavior, however compassionate, to be considered moral.
Some psychologists claim that empathic responses are forms of moral behavior. Having observed that young children who witness another's distress respond by expressing sadness and offering help, these psychologists believe that moral behavior begins early in life. A second group of psychologists claims that empathic response is not, by itself, moral behavior and that in order to count as moral, behavior must be based on a clear understanding of moral principles and a certain degree of moral reasoning skill. On the basis of children's unsophisticated verbal responses to hypothetical moral dilemmas, these psychologists conclude that children lack the degree of moral reasoning skill necessary for their behavior, however compassionate, to be considered moral.
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the conclusion drawn by the second group of psychologists?
The children studied by the second group of psychologists displayed a slightly higher level of moral reasoning when they were well rested than when they were tired.
Adults who respond to hypothetical moral dilemmas display a much higher level of moral reasoning than do children who responded to the same hypothetical moral dilemmas.
The children studied by the second group of psychologists displayed a slightly higher level of moral reasoning in response to hypothetical dilemmas involving adults than in response to hypothetical dilemmas involving children.
In actual situations involving moral dilemmas, children display a much higher level of moral reasoning than did the children who, in the study by the second group of psychologists, responded only to hypothetical dilemmas.
Some adults who respond to hypothetical moral dilemmas reason at about the same level as children who respond to the same hypothetical moral dilemmas.
Explanations
We have two arguments to evaluate, here: the one made by the psychologists who think kids have the capacity for moral behavior and the one made by the psychologists who think kids lack that capacity. Capacity is the big differentiator. In other words, can or can't kids act morally?
The first argument rests on observations that kids act empathetically when they see other kids in distress. The psychologists observing these behaviors seem to think that they point to the capacity for moral behavior.
The second argument morality has a precondition: understanding the why behind your behavior. When I first read this, I was already leery of it. Who actually understands their behavior, after all? Their evidence is shaky, too. They point to kids having weak spoken responses to hypothetical scenarios. I don't know about you, but my 4-year-old sometimes struggles to verbalize responses when I lecture him. Does that mean he definitely doesn't understand me? No. For the most part, he gets it.
The question asks us to weaken argument number two. How might we do that?
Well, my first inclination drew from my experience as a dad. That is, a kid's verbal response to abstract ideas (hypothetical moral dilemmas) doesn't necessarily mean the kid lacks the capacity for moral behavior. They might just not have the vocabulary or attention span to listen to you blather on about some complicated topic.
What else might weaken it? Let's look at a logical extreme. Remember, the question says "if true." What if an answer choice said, "Compassionate behavior, no matter how sophisticated, is always moral." Now, I don't believe that. And it's not necessarily true in reality. But if an answer choice said it, and we assumed it was true, that would destroy the second group's argument about kids. Sometimes it helps to take weakeners and strengtheners to their extremes.
No. How rested the kids were doesn't tell us anything about their overall understanding of the hypotheticals. Maybe they were slightly more verbal when rested, but the second group's argument still holds strong against this counter.
Nah, this is a strengthener. If this was true the second group's argument would get better, not worse. We need worse.
Also no. We need something that says kids have the capacity for moral reasoning. All we get here is that kids seem to slightly improve when hypotheticals involve adults. This does very, very little to help our case.
Yes. This is solid. This takes us from the realm of the hypothetical (where these kids were originally studied) to reality. If, in reality, kids demonstrate moral reasoning, then the hypothetical aspects of the study could invalidate. This weakens the argument for sure.
Nope. All this would tell us is that adults are equally bad at moral reasoning, not that kids are actually competent at it.
0 Comments