Bibliographic record
Abstract
How children come to construct and respect moral norms was the central problem Piaget addressed in his major work on moral development, The Moral Judgment of the Child (1932/1965), with additional essays published in the Sociological Studies (1977/1995). One formulation of this is the problem of “understanding how human societies have come to constitute and recognize law, that is, to construct rules that the social group considers valid and obligatory” (Piaget, 1977/1995, p. 159; see Chapter 3, this volume). The fact that this problem still tends to be neglected gives Piaget's work continuing relevance. Piaget dealt with issues in 1932 that are present in current debates, and he offers an approach that is still missing in psychology. Although it is assumed that Kohlberg built on and extended Piaget's initial work, in fact Kohlberg rejected critical aspects of Piaget's approach, which resulted in problems not present in Piaget's own approach. I introduce Piaget's approach to moral development in the context of his general epistemological approach and discuss the development of children's understanding and use of rules in the context of different social relationships and other aspects of children's practical moral activity such as their understanding of lying and justice. Finally, I consider the implications of Piaget's views for current approaches to moral development.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".