The Relation between Law and Morality: Children's Reasoning about Socially Beneficial and Unjust Laws
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated children's reasoning about laws and legal compliance. A total of 72 children, 24 each at 6, 8, and 10 years of age, made judgments of law evaluation ("Is it a good or bad law?"), legitimacy of legal regulation ("Is it OK or not for government to make a law?"), and law violation ("Is it OK or not for people to break the law?") for three socially beneficial laws (a traffic law, a vaccination law, and a law requiring compulsory education for children under 16) and three unjust laws (denial of education to a class of persons, denial of medical care to the poor, and age discrimination). Participants also evaluated the application of laws in conflict scenarios in which a socially beneficial law infringed on individual freedom. Results showed that children considered a number of factors in their judgments, including the perceived justice of the law, its socially beneficial purpose, and its potential for infringement on individual freedoms and rights. The findings showed that children apply moral concepts of harm, rights, and justice to evaluate laws and to inform their judgments of legal compliance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".