If someone is doing wrong, like if he is in the habit of stealing other's money or harming them on purpose, then we should pray to God for him, we should collect blessings for him – if he is not bothered about himself, at least we are. We should pray to God so that God gives him blessings and helps him become a good person. By doing this for him, we will also get blessings and a good life in return.
Morality is a fundamental aspect of human development, one that encompasses a multitude of values related to the interactions between the self, others, and the spiritual world. This intersection of the autonomous, interpersonal, and spiritual spheres in morality is a characteristic of the Indian moral worldview. The preceding quotation from a participant in our study illustrates this well. Much attention has been given to the role of autonomy and community in moral reasoning, whereas divinity remains insufficiently explored. In the present chapter, we show evidence for the need to include divinity in the study of moral reasoning. We focus on Indian children's use of divinity concepts in moral discourse and the influences of age and social class. We begin with an overview of traditional psychological theories and their propositions regarding divinity and moral reasoning. Following that, we review research that employs noncognitive and cultural perspectives in the study of morality. Next, we discuss the role of divinity in the Indian moral worldview and aspects of moral socialization that help children imbibe cultural meanings associated with moral reasoning, with special emphasis on divinity concepts. Last, adopting the cultural-developmental approach, we provide quantitative and qualitative evidence for the early emergence of divinity in children's moral reasoning in the Indian context.
Religion and divinity in moral psychology
Early theories and research in the field of moral psychology have largely been dominated by the cognitive development approach that emphasizes universal frameworks of moral reasoning and development (Kohlberg, Reference Kohlberg1981; Piaget, 1932/Reference Piaget1965). These theories are developed from the vantage point of dominant Western traditions that emphasize autonomous and justice-based moral reasoning. In doing so, they have often neglected and undermined alternate moral conceptions that are integral to worldviews held by groups in other parts of the world, including those that have religious and spiritual underpinnings. A review of contributions made by early developmental theorists reflects a separation of the religious and moral spheres.
In his theory of cognitive development, Piaget (1932/Reference Piaget1965) emphasized universal standards of rational and mature thinking. He distinguished between the logical, scientific, rational world of modern people and the religious, superstitious, and irrational world of “primitive” people. Thus, progressive moral thinking was strictly characterized by objective ideals of logic and justice, whereas beliefs in immanent justice (the idea that suffering is punishment for one's sins), animistic thinking (belief that inanimate objects have feelings and desires), and the role of social order (duties, obligations, and social roles) that are central to moral philosophies of several non-Western cultures were believed to be immature or less-developed modes of thinking and reasoning (Shweder, Much, Mahapatra, et al., Reference Shweder, Much, Mahapatra, Park, Brandt and Rozin1997). Thus, Piagetian theory offers a rather narrow definition of morality, one that does not extend beyond principles of justice and fairness to encompass moral worldviews that involve religious or spiritual ideas.
Kohlberg's theory of moral development was an extension of Piaget's ideas, and he similarly began with the assumption that autonomy is reflective of a higher level of moral development compared to religious attitudes or principles (Kohlberg, Reference Kohlberg and Power1981). Kohlberg and Power (Reference Kohlberg and Power1981) asserted that morality is independent of religion and that moral education should be based on universal principles of justice and fairness. The well-known six stages of moral development proposed by Kohlberg posit justice as the highest principle. The cultural appropriateness of Kohlberg's theory has long been debated, especially his claim for universality and the neglect of religious as well as community concepts in moral discourse. Kohlberg later proposed a seventh stage where he speculated the possibility of a cosmic orientation and a religious perspective. Presumably, this stage included concepts pertaining to the natural law as well as ideas such as universal love, service, and sacrifice. However, moral reasoning and religious reasoning were still seen as distinguishable, almost parallel areas in human development.
On similar lines, Turiel (Reference Turiel2002) proposed that moral rules are ones that can be justified through reasoning based on universal ideas of justice and fairness. According to Turiel, there may be nonmoral and moral rules of religion. The nonmoral rules are those that are the conventional type. These apply only to members of the religion and depend on religious authority. In contrast, moral rules have a different kind of connection with religion in that people outside the religion are also obliged to adhere to these rules, and moral acts are evaluated independent of God's word, as in the case of issues related to harm or justice. Thus, religion and morality share a complex relationship that includes what ought to be part of religious teachings. Hence, domain theorists distinguished between the relative or conventional aspects of religion and the absolute or universal aspects of the moral domain, which may also feature in what religions prescribe.
These early theories have given significant impetus for subsequent research, with many scholars arguing for a broader definition of morality – one that includes multiple moral concepts used by diverse cultures and groups (Edwards, Reference Edwards, Kagan and Lamb1987; Haidt, Koller, & Dias, Reference Haidt, Koller and Dias1993; Miller & Bersoff, Reference Miller, Bersoff, Killen and Hart1995; Vasudev & Hummel, Reference Vasudev and Hummel1987; Zimba, Reference Zimba1994). This chapter also aims to highlight the role of culture and divinity concepts in children's emerging conceptualization of morality.
Cultural examinations of divinity in moral development
Research involving application of the universalistic approaches of Piaget, Kohlberg, and Turiel across cultures suggests the need for a more pluralistic and culture-inclusive framework of understanding morality. Research shows that Kohlberg's manual tends to overlook concepts of divinity, spirituality, and religion even though these concepts are foundational to morality in various cultural groups (Miller & Luthar, Reference Miller and Luthar1989; Shweder, Mahapatra, & Miller, Reference Shweder, Mahapatra, Miller, Stigler, Shweder and Herdt1990; Vasquez, Keltner, Ebenbach, et al., Reference Vasquez, Keltner, Ebenbach and Banaszynski2001; Vasudev, Reference Vasudev, Miller and Cook-Greuter1994; Vasudev & Hummel, Reference Vasudev and Hummel1987). Further, Shweder and Much (Reference Shweder, Much and Shweder1991) as well as Vasudev (Reference Vasudev, Miller and Cook-Greuter1994) have shown that Kohlberg's theory portrays a limited view of postconventional thought and offers little scope to capture alternate forms of postconventional thinking.
Vasudev takes the example of ahimsa (nonviolence or harmlessness) to illustrate this point. Ahimsa is regarded as the ultimate religion and the highest moral virtue in the Mahabharata (Sanskrit epic of ancient India). This concept of nonviolence prescribes an obligation not to inflict harm by “mind, word or deed” (Chatterjee, Reference Chatterjee1995; Vasudev, Reference Vasudev, Miller and Cook-Greuter1994) to any form of life. It stems from and perpetuates a sense of deep connection and moral obligation toward all living beings, including fellow humans, animals, and plants. It is a foundational aspect of three important ancient religions of India – Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism. It permeates life and philosophy in India, including everyday moral preferences such as eating a vegetarian diet and avoiding animal products (e.g., animal fat, meat, and eggs) that are believed to pollute the soul. Further, Gandhi (Reference Gandhi1951) developed the concept of satyagraha as a practical extension of ahimsa. Satya implies truth, and agraha implies firmness. Thus, satyagraha is the force that stems from truth and love, or nonviolence. He understood ahimsa as the love for all living beings, including one's enemy, and thus led the nation to engage in peaceful resistance against and noncooperation with the British rule in India. Moral reasoning pertaining to ahimsa cannot be coded using Kohlberg's manual even though it is regarded as one of the highest moral virtues in India and has immense religious as well as moral significance in Indian society.
Similarly, Huebner and Garrod (Reference Huebner and Garrod1991) examined moral views of Tibetan Buddhist monks through in-depth interviews. They argued that the monks' meta-ethical beliefs are remarkably different from Kohlberg's views. For instance, the authors draw attention to the moral significance of dukkha, or suffering in the karmic world (while cautioning the reader about dukkha being more than what the closest English word for it – suffering – suggests). In Buddhism, suffering is conceptualized as one means of undoing negative karma (deeds), the second being the involvement in positive karma. Additionally, this understanding of suffering endorses the prevention of and sensitivity to the suffering of others, including fellow nonhuman beings. For example, Huebner and Garrod explained how monks in their study were perceptive of the pain, vulnerability, and suffering endured by animals or insects because of being less developed compared to humans. By virtue of upholding these moral values and concepts, Buddhists are likely to come across moral dilemmas that are unfamiliar to Western thought. Thus, Huebner and Garrod claimed that the conceptualization of morality within the framework of assumptions established by Western philosophers is often inadequate in accounting for moral reasoning in Buddhist cultures and in other non-Western cultures. They advocated for the need to explore alternate ideologies and to understand moral worldviews in the context of the philosophy and language of a culture. Interestingly, research suggests that although divinity or supernatural concepts, such as karma and sacred self, run counter to the mainstream scientific discourse in the United States, they continue to exist in the moral conscience of certain groups in the country, even though they may be considered as part of one's personal realm (Jensen, Reference Jensen1998; Shweder, Reference Shweder2003). Contrary to this trend, religious and spiritual themes are openly acknowledged as central aspects of morality in several other cultures and are essential to moral socialization.
Additionally, we would like to note that ideas about God and divinity have been found to have several positive influences on development. For example, research in Canada suggests that priming for God concepts generates a sense of security and increases prosocial behaviors such as cooperation and generosity (Shariff & Norenzayan, Reference Shariff and Norenzayan2007). Kumari and Pirta (Reference Kumari and Pirta2009) provide evidence that God serves as a secure base for Hindus in India. Findings from the study lend support to the proposition that religious phenomena such as the belief in God and supernatural power have important positive influences. Faith in traditional religious moral values continues to serve as a source of immense hope, courage to face difficulties in life, and thus promotes positive mental health outcomes throughout the course of development. In case of adverse situations, God serves as affirmative energy that instills in people hope and the determination to pursue a moral path, even if that entails undergoing temporary hardship. Thus, examining religious and spiritual beliefs from within the cultural frame of reference and value systems helps illuminate and acknowledge their role in moral reasoning. In the next section, we explain aspects of the Hindu Indian moral worldview to contextualize moral reasoning among participants in the present study.
The Hindu moral worldview
In the Indian philosophical tradition, Vedas (ancient religious texts) represent the ultimate religious authority, especially with respect to dharma (righteous duty) and Brahmān (universal order) (Sharma, Reference Sharma2000). Additionally, the Vedas inform us about specific qualities and values that should be upheld in life. For instance, ahankar (pride) should be eliminated, and qualities such as manusa (humanity), daanam (charity), damyata (self-control), dayadhvam (compassion), and sama (tranquility) are important. These qualities make one vinamra (humble/modest), lead to an ethical way of life, and, in turn, bring one closer to attaining the ultimate goal of moksha (Chatterjee, Reference Chatterjee1995). Research shows that in spite of the many influences brought about by invasions, migrations, reform movements (e.g., Buddhism and Sikhism), and modernization, the principal values of the Indian moral worldview remain integral to people's conscience and have an implicit influence on moral thought and behavior (Menon, Reference Menon, Valsiner and Connolly2003; Miller & Luthar, Reference Miller and Luthar1989; Saraswathi, Mistry, & Dutta, Reference Saraswathi, Mistry, Dutta and Jensen2011).
The observance of dharma through good karma (actions) and pursuit of moksha, or liberation of the soul from the cycle of birth-death-rebirth, comprise the central goals of human life in Hinduism. Karma is believed to be a moral order, in which events take place for ethical reasons, and, in the long run, sins are punished and righteous conduct is rewarded (Bhangaokar & Kapadia, Reference Bhangaokar and Kapadia2009; Huebner & Garrod, Reference Huebner and Garrod1991; Paranjpe, Reference Paranjpe1996; Shweder, Mahapatra, & Miller, Reference Shweder, Mahapatra, Miller, Stigler, Shweder and Herdt1990). Thus, karma functions as a law of causality where consequences of good and bad deeds may be experienced in the present or future births.
According to the law of karma, souls progress from lower to higher forms till they achieve the human form. In their human birth, they accumulate credit and discredit through their good and bad deeds. Good deeds result in birth in the human form and bad deeds lead to birth in the form of an animal. The influence of the deeds is not limited to the form one's soul takes at rebirth; deeds also influence the quality of life and experiences in future births (Paranjpe, Reference Paranjpe1996). Thus, the goal of the karmic cycle is to achieve a better form of rebirth through samsāra (transmigration of souls) or to ultimately gain moksha (liberation from the delusion of individual existence) and attain the realization of one's true self, or ātman. We think it is important to note that the Brahmān in the Hindu worldview responds to human activity. It is not a fatalistic view. Thus, people suffer or enjoy benefits depending on their karma in their present as well as previous lives and depending on their good and bad deeds in everyday life (Clooney, Reference Clooney1989).
This Indian moral worldview is also highly contextual (Ramanujan, Reference Ramanujan and Marriott1990). There are no absolute claims or rules that one must abide by; instead, one's deeds are judged as “good” or “bad” on the basis of social roles, duties, and circumstances. Additionally, these abstract philosophical ideas form the foundation of concrete practices and values that inform us of ways of leading a moral life. The ultimate goal of spiritual enlightenment and moksha can be attained by fulfilling one's duties and following moral discipline throughout life. For example, Krishnan and Manoj (Reference Krishnan, Manoj, K. R. Rao, Paranjpe and Dalal2008) closely examined traditional Hindu writings to understand the concept of daanam in the purview of the Indian psychology of values. The word daanam literally means “giving” and loosely translates to charity. However, the authors assert that daanam is more than merely prosocial behavior or altruism, as is commonly conceptualized by social psychologists and the Western world. In the Hindu system of values, it has a deeper moral and religious significance, too. For example, as Krishnan and Manoj explain, daanam involves nivrutti, or withdrawal/detachment, and tyaaga, or relinquishment by the donor.
Paranjpe (Reference Paranjpe2013) explained the concept of dharma – the cornerstone for understanding morality among Hindu Indians – by highlighting that dharma does not mean religion. It is also not tied to a single explanatory belief system, and it does not pose any threat to a science. Rather, the concept of dharma is pluralistic and concerns the “upholding” of a moral order in the world. This understanding has societal, interpersonal, and spiritual/individualistic implications.
Menon (Reference Menon2013) stated that the understanding of dharma is not duty based but, rather, goal based. One of the goals is cosmic in nature, and the other, individualistic. Moral development is a life-long process that depends on self-discipline and self-refinement, necessary ingredients for the upholding of dharma and the cultivation of nonattachment. The ultimate goal of spiritual enlightenment, or moksha, can be attained by fulfilling one's duties and performing actions (karma) with nonattachment (niskama). These views reiterate the fact that dharma should not be bound to narrow understandings of duty or righteousness. Rather, they provide a broad template to navigate individual moral concerns in a highly contextual, social, and spiritual framework.
From a very young age, children observe and participate in everyday familial and social practices that reiterate this Hindu Indian worldview. Thus, these moral values and philosophical ideas are transmitted over generations through socialization (Miller & Bersoff, Reference Miller, Bersoff, Killen and Hart1995; Shweder & Much, Reference Shweder, Much and Shweder1991). Children have multiple sources of cultural learning. These include everyday habits enforced by adults such as touching the feet of elders to convey respect, removing footwear outside temples and homes to maintain their sanctity, and considering guests as a form of God and serving them with love, respect, and reverence. Additionally, participation in everyday rituals such as bathing, dressing, feeding, worshipping God, and feeding the needy to maintain the spirit of sharing with others is also encouraged. Last, listening to mythological stories from adults or grandparents (e.g., the Mahabharata, Ramayana, Panchatantra) plays a major role in inculcating the understanding of moral principles through the example of model characters and the way they lived their lives.
The present study is part of a larger cultural-developmental study on the development of morality in children, adolescents, and adults in the Indian context. Here we focused on children and their moral reasoning in terms of divinity concepts. Through quantitative and qualitative analyses, we address the extent of similarities and differences between younger and older children, and children of different socioeconomic statuses (SES). We also provide a detailed, culturally grounded elaboration and explication of the religious concepts used by these Indian children, with the aim of broadening the current literature on morality.
Present study
A cultural-developmental framework: the three ethics
Shweder and colleagues propose a pluralistic definition of morality and differentiate three Ethics of Autonomy, Community, and Divinity (Shweder, Much, Mahapatra, et al., Reference Shweder, Much, Mahapatra, Park, Brandt and Rozin1997). The Ethic of Autonomy defines the self as an autonomous being with rights, needs, and the freedom to make choices and protect individual interests. This ethic includes virtues such as self-expression, self-esteem, and independence. The Ethic of Community views the self as a member of social groups, with duties and obligations toward the group's well-being. Thus, self-moderation, respect, and loyalty toward the group are important virtues within this ethic. Last, the Ethic of Divinity focuses on the self as a spiritual being and involves reasoning that pertains to divine law, ancient scriptures, and purity of the soul. It encompasses virtues such as faithfulness, humility, and devotion.
Research across cultures such as Brazil, India, the Philippines, Finland, and the United States has shown the presence of the three ethics in moral reasoning (Haidt, Koller, & Dias, Reference Haidt, Koller and Dias1993; Jensen, Reference Jensen2008; Vainio, Reference Vainio2003; Vasquez, Keltner, Ebenbach, et al., Reference Vasquez, Keltner, Ebenbach and Banaszynski2001). Research also provides evidence for the utility of the Three Ethics framework in examining differences in moral reasoning in groups within cultures, for instance, groups of different socioeconomic and religious backgrounds (Haidt, Koller, & Dias, Reference Haidt, Koller and Dias1993; Jensen, Reference Jensen1998).
Jensen (Reference Jensen2008) has proposed the cultural-developmental approach that charts the development of the three ethics across the life span. The developmental trajectories in the template have the potential to accommodate worldviews held by people of diverse cultural groups. Jensen has observed that there is very little research on the Ethic of Divinity. With this caveat in mind, she suggests that in cultures where divinity is prominent and conceptualized in abstract ways, the degree of use of divinity concepts is low among children and rises during adolescence to become similar to adult use of the ethic. The reason for this developmental trajectory is that abstract concepts, although available to children, may be incorporated into moral reasoning only upon development of the cognitive abilities for abstraction during adolescence (Kohlberg, Reference Kohlberg1981; Piaget, 1932/Reference Piaget1965).
With respect to India, Jensen specifically suggests that the use of divinity in moral reasoning may emerge at a fairly young age. She explains that in India religious beliefs are accessible to children as aspects integral to daily routines and lives of individuals, as we also explained above. Thus, children grow up in a familial and community ethos where religious devotion and conceptions permeate everyday practice, thought, and interactions.
Thus, by examining the role of culture in moral development and the significance of divinity, the present chapter aims to address a lacuna in contemporary moral psychology. In the present chapter we extend research on the developmental and cultural aspects of morality in India. We examine children's use of divinity in moral reasoning and provide support for the hypothesis that in India, where divinity and morality are closely related and where everyday life and activities reflect religious beliefs, divinity concepts and ethical values of the Indian moral worldview feature early in children's moral reasoning. Specifically, we draw upon research with third- and sixth-grade children from the city of Vadodara, India. We approached children belonging to higher and lower socioeconomic class (SES) families for the study so as to ensure representation of both social classes from Indian society. Our aim is to focus on both culture and development in line with the cultural-developmental approach and to contribute to new theory and research on moral reasoning. Extending the cultural-developmental approach (Jensen, Reference Jensen2008, Reference Jensen2011), we expected Divinity reasoning to be present early and to rise with age. Thus, we expected older children to use more Divinity in their reasoning compared with their younger counterparts. Further, we did not expect to find a difference in the use of divinity in moral reasoning between lower and higher social class groups because the Hindu moral worldview represents a way of life available to all and, more importantly, because not much research is available to guide our hypothesis.
The participants and interview
A total of 144 children from Vadodara in the state of Gujarat, India, participated in in-depth interviews about five hypothetical scenarios. Participants were third graders (Mage = 8.22 years, SD = 0.61) and sixth graders (Mage = 11.54 years, SD = 0.50). Within each age group, an equal number of participants belonged to upper-middle and low socioeconomic families (n = 36). Additionally, an even gender distribution was maintained within each age and socioeconomic group. Participants from the higher social class were approached through a private school catering to children belonging to upper-middle-class families, whereas participants from the lower social class were identified through a local nongovernmental organization that provides educational assistance to children in urban slum communities of Vadodara. Additionally, in each urban slum community an enthusiastic group of youth volunteered to assist in snowballing additional participants. These youth, or peer leaders, helped build rapport with children and families in the slum communities. This approach was essential as it helped build a sense of trust in a community where research is rare, thereby aiding the process of recruitment.
The five hypothetical scenarios were about moral issues that children might experience in their everyday lives, such as lying, stealing, helping others, and participating in religious practices. They included moral issues that parents are likely to discuss with their children to inculcate moral values. Additionally, the scenarios involved diverse moral concepts and issues highlighted in theories and research in moral psychology, such as justice, fairness, interdependence, duty, spirituality, and divinity (Jensen, Reference Jensen2011; Kohlberg, Reference Kohlberg1981; Piaget, 1932/Reference Piaget1965; Shweder, Mahapatra, & Miller, Reference Shweder, Mahapatra, Miller, Stigler, Shweder and Herdt1990; Snarey & Keljo, Reference Snarey, Keljo, Kurtines and Gewirtz1991; Vasudev & Hummel, Reference Vasudev and Hummel1987). These scenarios were presented to participants in a random order during the interviews. (The Interview Schedule at the end of this chapter provides verbatim descriptions of the five scenarios.)
Briefly, the first scenario pertained to a boy who is on his way to an important soccer game where he is to represent his school. On the way, he finds an injured kitten. The dilemma is whether to help the kitten or proceed to the match. The second scenario is about a girl whose mother gives her money to buy sweets. On her way home she loses the packet of sweets. She has to decide whether to take money from a wallet lying close by so she can purchase a new packet of sweets. The third scenario is based in the context of an Indian festival when a boy unintentionally breaks an idol of God while playing soccer. He has to choose between telling the adults in his neighborhood that he broke the idol or remaining quiet. In the fourth scenario, the participant has to resolve the dilemma by deciding whether to help a needy friend by lying to her teacher. Last, the fifth scenario is about a girl who tastes prashad before it is offered to God (Prashad is food offered to God before being eaten by worshippers, also believed to be a form of God's blessings.) The dilemma is whether to tell her mother the truth or allow her mother unknowingly to commit the sin of offering tasted prashad to God.
Participants responded to the following questions in each scenario: “What should the girl/boy do?” “Why?” “What would you have done if you faced such a dilemma?” “Why?” “What if you did otherwise?” and “Why would that be morally right or morally wrong?” These probes served to elicit moral evaluations (i.e., what course of action to take) and reasoning (i.e., why that course of action). Additional follow-up questions were asked as needed to ensure that participants carefully thought through each dilemma and discussed all their reasons. For example, if participants talked about punishment avoidance, they were asked to explain who would punish them, in what way, and why.
The five scenarios used language that all children could easily comprehend. They were constructed in a story-like format in consideration of the age of the participants and to make the interview process interesting for the children. Participants had the choice of using English or Gujarati, or both, during the interviews. All interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed verbatim to enable coding. Interviews that were conducted in Gujarati were first transcribed in Gujarati and later translated into English. In order to preserve important cultural concepts and meanings, certain indigenous terms and phrases were retained in the English transcripts; for example, terms like punya (virtue) and paap (sin).
Every moral reason that participants provided was analyzed using the Three Ethics coding manual (Jensen, Reference Jensen2008). In the coding manual, each of the Three Ethics includes thirteen to sixteen subethics. These subethics represent moral concepts that may be used in participants' reasoning about moral dilemmas. For instance, the Ethic of Autonomy includes subethics such as “Self's Psychological Well-Being,” “Other Individual's Psychological Well-Being,” “Conscience,” and “Punishment Avoidance (to self).” Thus, each response given by participants was coded under one ethic and a specific subcode within the chosen ethic. Interrater reliability of 97.2 percent was obtained using Kappa calculations.
Next, we describe and elaborate on quantitative results for the Ethic of Divinity. Then, we provide a qualitative explication of the key divinity concepts used in children's moral discourse and their meaning within the broader Hindu Indian worldview pertaining to God and karma.
Quantitative results: age and SES differences
Participants used all three ethics in their moral reasoning. The Ethic of Autonomy was used frequently (M = 3.51, SD = 2.22), closely followed by the Ethic of Divinity (M = 3.00, SD = 2.00), and then the Ethic of Community (M = 1.20, SD = 1.10). Thus, the Ethic of Divinity was commonly used by participants across age and SES groups.
A 2(Age) × 2(SES) analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was conducted to examine whether there were any differences in the number of reasons provided by children across all five scenarios. Results showed that older children gave significantly more reasons (M = 8.18, SD = 3.78) than did younger children (M = 6.73, SD = 2.80), F(1, 136) = 7.63, p < 0.01. This finding supports past research that indicates that the number of moral reasons increases with age (Jensen, Reference Jensen2011; Walker, Pitts, Hennig, et al., Reference Walker, Pitts, Hennig, Matsuba, Killen and Hart1995). Additionally, children belonging to the higher SES group gave more reasons (M = 8.54, SD = 3.47) than did children in the lower SES group (M = 6.37, SD = 2.91), F(1, 136) = 17.17, p < 0.001.
In order to examine whether there were differences in the use of the Ethic of Divinity in the age and SES groups, 2(Age) × 2(SES) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) tests were conducted with total number of reasons as the covariate. The total number of reasons was entered as a covariate to control for the significant differences in the total number of reasons given.
Results indicated a significant main effect for age, F(1135) = 7.014, p < 0.05, est. η2 = .049, where younger children used significantly more Divinity (M = 2.72, SD = 1.85) than older children (M = 2.66, SD = 2.14). This finding did not support our hypothesis that older children are capable of using this ethic more compared with the younger group. We would argue that cultural socialization plays a major role in nurturing a sense of morality that includes divine and spiritual concepts in moral thought at a young age. Results show that children are capable of not only autonomy-oriented moral perspectives but also those that involve Divinity as a foundation. Additionally, as described in the qualitative section (below), children's moral understanding is not limited to concrete ideas but also extends to include transcendent aspects such as karma, dharma, and moksha.
A main effect was also obtained for SES, F(1135) = 4.659, p < 0.05, est. η2 = .03, with the higher SES group reasoning more in terms of Divinity (M = 2.87, SD = 2.24) than the lower SES group (M = 2.51, SD = 1.71). One possible explanation for this finding is higher SES children have more access to monetary and other resources to organize and participate in elaborate forms of worshipping God and to enjoy affiliations with religious communities that also strengthen ritual-based practices. Moreover, by and large the higher SES group also represents the higher castes in the Indian social fabric, and therefore they are exposed to Brahminical rituals, values, and beliefs. Thus, affluence and the access to religious sources of moral learning may create a greater awareness of divine moral concepts in the Hindu worldview. However, these explanations are only speculations and need to be explored more through research.
Last, there was not a significant interaction effect between age and SES, F(1136) = 0.181, p = 0.672, est. η2 = 0.001. Next, we present a qualitative explanation of concepts used by children in moral discourse. We include verbatim responses of participants. These responses accentuate the role of divinity concepts commonly used in children's moral judgments and reasoning, for instance, ideas about God, sin, divine authority, and karma.
Qualitative results
Paap: sin and punishment from God
A closer look at the subcodes used by children within the Ethic of Divinity informs us about moral concepts that children use while justifying their moral judgments. Punishment Avoidance was the most frequently used subcode for both age groups within the Ethic of Divinity. Children's reasoning reflected the belief that any wrongdoing will inevitably result in incurring paap from God. Children across the two age groups also indicated that the intensity of punishment from God depends on the nature of the transgression involved. More severe forms of paap were expected for transgressions involving disrespect for life and traditional practices as compared with transgressions such as lying or hurting another's feelings.
Children also spoke of consequences of paap on one's soul, by suggesting that our deeds (karma) in the present life influence our next life and that bad deeds would result in unpleasant consequences in our next birth. This view is illustrated in the following response given by a boy belonging to the higher SES group:
If we do good things in our present life, we will also get good things in our next life. But if we don't help the kitten even when we saw that she was in pain and that she was dying, then God will give us a lot of paap…he will make us an animal in our next life and will give us the life of an animal…an animal can't talk and tell others about problems or ask for help. As human beings we have a more developed brain, we have more capacities and we can live more comfortably.
Children of lower SES emphasized direct physical consequences of paap. These included accidents, physical injuries, poor health, illnesses, and direct physical disciplining from God. Illustrating this point, a third grader of lower SES explained that on committing sin, “God will beat us a lot when we go up [after death]. He will question us about times when we failed to make the right choice between right and wrong, if we would have harmed anyone, then God will beat us, too, he will make us walk on cinders, whip us, and punish us to make us realize our mistakes.”
Children from the higher SES group perceived implications of paap in other respects, too, such as their academic performance. They talked about how incurring paap could make them perform poorly in exams even if they had prepared well or that the principal might suspend them from school and not give good grades because of bad moral conduct in school.
Children from across the two age and two SES groups also asserted that their moral conduct or misconduct could have consequences on their own well-being as well as the well-being of others closely related to them. For instance, a girl from the higher SES group said:
God will see what I did. I ate the Prasad before offering it to God. I will have to tell my mother. If I don't, then God will not give blessings to me or my family. He will punish me for what I have done and then God will think my parents haven't taught me what is right or wrong, so they may get punished too…our sukh (happiness) and shanti (peace) will be taken away.
This emphasis on punishment avoidance in the children's moral reasoning resonates somewhat with the structure of moral thought proposed by Piaget, in which he suggests that young children judge behaviors as right or wrong based solely on consequences rather than on intensions and that children are primarily motivated to follow rules because of the fear of punishment. However, qualitative analyses suggest that the moral understanding expressed in children's reasoning reflects more cultural leanings. For instance, the cultural meanings associated with transgressions and their consequences are seen in light of indigenous moral concepts of karma, paap, purity of the soul, rebirth, and so forth. Additionally, as discussed in the literature review, Piaget's theory does not adequately address moral concepts related to divinity, whereas children's reasoning in the present study shows consistent use of divinity concepts that are integral to the Indian moral worldview and value system. Most importantly, unlike Piaget's proposition, children as young as 8 years spoke of a wide range of divinity concepts, including abstract ones such as God's omnipotence and omnipresence and that one's moral conduct in the present life has consequences for one's next life.
God's authority
God's authority emerged as a frequently used subcode among the younger group of children. These children spoke of doing what pleases God and avoiding behaviors that make God angry. Additionally, younger children attributed emotions to God. The following response by an 8-year-old boy illustrates this:
If we do good for God, God will also do good for us. But if we have broken his idol by mistake and if we don't tell everyone, then God will be upset and angry. He will like for us to say the truth and to face the consequences. Even if we did it by mistake, he will be happy that we could let everyone know, he will feel less worried and will be so proud of us!
As exemplified in this response, children's ideas about God reflected an implicit conviction in God's existence. Children seem to understand what God would appreciate and, thus, are ready to face consequences of transgressions. God then becomes a medium to endorse morally appropriate behavior among children. Children also spoke about God as though they were connected to God through emotions and actions. Among older children this sense of connectedness seemed to extend into a sense of duty and obligation toward God. This sense of duty is expressed by an 11-year-old boy of lower SES: “We can't offer tasted food to God. We should first offer prashad to God and then taste it, so that fresh/pure food if offered to him. He is the one who gave us food and the life…and family that we have. How can we eat before him?”
Children's perception of God and God's characteristics
As evident from the verbatim responses in the previous sections, participants of both age and SES groups referred to God as omnipotent, omnipresent, and just. Children spoke of God's presence in everything and everyone. This belief in God as omnipotent was reflected in their reasoning when they talked about the sanctity of all forms of life. The following reasoning given by an 8-year-old girl from the lower SES group highlights a common response in favor of helping an injured kitten: “God has given life to the kitten, so her life is precious and we must save her. Like all animals and plants, God exists in the kitten too, and so, it is our duty to save her or at least do what we can to help her feel better.”
Additionally, children frequently brought up the concept of purity and pollution. In the scenario involving the prashad being offered to God, children expressed the need to offer fresh food to God – the kind that is offered with clean hands, in a clean vessel, and with purity of heart. They spoke of the need to have a clear conscience before God and of the consequences of a polluted mind. As expressed by an 11-year-old girl from the higher SES group:
God is sacred and pure, we cannot offer tasted sweets to God or with dirty hands. We must offer sweets with clean hands. I think Neha should tell her mother that she has tasted the prashad. If we lie, we will not have peace in our mind. We will feel guilty, and our soul will be restless. That means that we are not doing right, we cannot steal or lie while we also worship God or pray for his blessings…it is just wrong to do that.
Furthermore, responses reflected the understanding that God exists across geographical borders and in living as well as nonliving worlds (such as books or nature). This understanding is reflected in the common Indian maxim of kan kan mein bhagwan, which asserts that God resides in every unit – in oneself, in others, in animals, in plants, in rocks, and in sand. This understanding of God as omnipresent is also expressed in the Shanti Mantra (peace invocation) mentioned in the Ishavasya Upanishad:
This Sanskrit shloka (verse) explains the nature of the cosmic order, as understood in the Hindu worldview. It implies that “this (Brahmān) is infinite, and this (universe) is infinite. The infinite proceeds from the infinite. (Then) taking the infinitude of the infinite (universe), it remains as the infinite (Brahmān) alone.” Simply put, it emphasizes that God is the origin of all. God is the beginning and the end of all; all emanates from and converges into God. This shloka conveys a deep and abstract philosophical belief in the supremacy, infiniteness, and totality of Brahmān (universal order). Yet, qualitative findings from the present study show that this belief is very much a part of children's knowledge.
Responses that highlight this abstract nature of morality understood by children – at least in its basic form – pose a challenge to Piagetian theory, which assumes that children are capable of only concrete, anthropomorphic representations of God; that is, they attribute the human form to God. Several studies have explored people's understandings of divinity and God from Piaget's perspective. They provide evidence for a shift from concrete conceptualizations in childhood to abstract thinking in adolescence and adulthood (Elkind, Reference Elkind1970; Ladd, McIntosh, & Spilka, Reference Ladd, McIntosh and Spilka1998). Yet others have provided evidence that suggests that people may talk in concrete as well as abstract terms through childhood and adolescence and that God may be “human-like” not only to children but also to adolescents and adults (Jensen, Reference Jensen2009). Additionally, research by Barrett and Richert (Reference Barrett and Richert2003) suggests that young children are capable of thinking of God in terms of properties that are nonanthropomorphic. Similarly, children's moral reasoning in the present sample suggests that they perceive God as a supernatural entity who is formless, all-knowing, omnipresent, and all-powerful.
Children asserted that God is the ultimate moral authority. They expressed utmost faith in God and spoke of God as just and all-forgiving. Following is a response from an 11-year-old girl that reflects children's perception of God as just: “If we do wrong by mistake or unknowingly, then God will forgive us and give us a chance to make up for our wrong-doing, but if we purposely do wrong or harm others, then God will certainly give paap.”
Furthermore, responses highlight a sense of mutual reciprocity and symbiotic dependence between oneself and God. Interestingly, this reciprocity is expressed in two forms. First, a direct form of reciprocity emerged in the reasoning. For example, “If I steal money from others, God will do the same to me. He will take away all our money and will ruin our life.” Second, an indirect form of reciprocity was reflected wherein one's actions toward others would determine God's considerations for oneself. For instance, “I will rescue the injured kitten and take care of it. It must be hungry and her mother must be worried. I will help because if I help others, then God will always be with me and will help me when I am in need.”
Early foundations of the karmic perspective and moral socialization
In the Indian worldview, karma is believed to be a moral order in which one's actions (right or wrong) have proportionate consequences (good or bad) for the self (Huebner & Garrod, Reference Huebner and Garrod1991; Shweder & Much, Reference Shweder, Much and Shweder1991). In this study, children could relate to the concept of karma as the law of cause and effect (causality). For instance, if we steal money, we will ourselves be struck by poverty; overlooking the plight of an injured kitten will result in one's birth in the form of a kitten or animal and suffering in a similar way; the truth will reveal itself in some way, possibly with worse implications that are beyond our control.
Shweder (Reference Shweder2003) challenges Piaget's universal claim that “immanent justice” is characteristic of young children and representative of an immature sense of morality. He suggests that it is unfair to assume that Hindus who believe in karma and other cultures that have faith in the supernatural or divine forces are intellectually immature. He explains that developmental standards or concepts developed by a culture need not be applied to other populations and that these standards are to be upheld by the cultural groups because they play a crucial role in allowing its people to “fit in” and develop self-identities that are well adjusted to and appreciated by their own people. We take this opportunity to highlight some of the differences in Piaget's ideas of immanent justice and Hindu beliefs regarding transgressions.
Unlike Piaget's understanding of immanent justice, moral discourse among children in the present study suggests that consequences of moral transgressions are not necessarily expected in the immediate present but may be experienced at any point in life or afterlife. This is possible because the soul is influenced by positive and negative karma and, thus, carries forward a record of sin and reward across the cycle of birth-death-rebirth. The possibility that one's actions have consequences on a broader time scale and across births becomes a motivational force for one to pursue a righteous path. This abstract understanding of divine justice needs to be acknowledged as a unique moral philosophy. It challenges Piaget's understanding of ideas such as sin, transmigration of souls, and the sacred self as characteristic of primitive and superstitious thought.
Moreover, a common theme that emerges from children's responses is that human birth is superior to other forms of life and presents a continuous relationship between one's karma and the cycle of birth and rebirth. Hence, the course of one's present life is determined by one's karma in the previous life and is also an indicator of one's life in the next birth. Therefore, the pursuit of moksha (salvation) or the human form of life and happiness in the next birth guides righteous behavior. In the present study, children maintained that, as humans, they have a developed brain, speech functions, and the ability to distinguish between “right” and “wrong.” These abilities make humans more developed and, hence, bestow upon them the onus of maintaining the natural order and being responsible toward all forms of life.
Additionally, children's reasoning emphasized the karmic connections between transgressions, paap, and reincarnation. Following is a response from an 8-year-old girl that illustrates this understanding: “If I see an injured kitten and choose to go for the match instead, then God will give me paap. He will make us a kitten in our next life, just like the dying kitten, and no one will help us. We will have to go through the same pain.” As also seen in the words of an 11-year-old girl, “If we do good in this life and do good for others, then we will come closer to getting moksha [salvation]…we will not have to take birth in the form of a human being or a lesser being [neechjeev] in our next birth.”
Importance was also given to Customary Traditional Authority, within the Ethic of Divinity. Children referred to traditional practices followed in their families (bathing, feeding, offering prayers to God, and other rituals) as major sources if moral knowledge. This emphasizes the influence of the cultural context and socialization through which moral concepts and meanings are implicitly conveyed to children through participation in daily activities and interactions with adults. These findings support the development of early foundations of the karmic perspective among children.
Conclusions and future directions
The existence and experience of God are central to the Hindu moral worldview and are reflected in multiple aspects of daily life – from traditional rituals to festivals, songs, stories, customs, and everyday practices. The present chapter gives considerable evidence that divinity emerges fairly early among children in India, highlighting the power of cultural socialization. Exactly how divinity develops over the course of childhood in India will require more research.
Children in India are continually assisted by adults to imbibe moral values conveyed in the context of routine practices and verbal exchanges, thereby facilitating greater continuity of cultural meanings and moral worldviews between generations. The use of karmic concepts in children's moral reasoning suggests that at an early age children are capable of learning not only concrete but also abstract concepts. On the one hand, children attribute human emotions to God and talk about reciprocity and a relationship of trust between themselves and God. On the other hand, they understand that God is formless and unseen and has powers that are beyond the scope of humans. Additionally, they are capable of explaining concepts such as sin (paap), karma, and rebirth as important considerations while making moral judgments and justifying them. It is interesting that such contrasting views regarding the concrete and the abstract are tacitly adopted by children and have implications of everyday moral decisions. Jensen (Reference Jensen2011) rightly estimates that in some Hindu communities divinity concepts may emerge at an early age among children because these concepts find repeated use and expression in daily life and practices. Our findings lend support to this speculation and give evidence for the early use of divinity in children's moral discourse in India.
It is important to note that children used all three ethics in an integrated manner. For instance, preliminary aspects of children's reasoning, focusing on fulfillment of self-goals (Autonomy) and interpersonal obligations (Community), seemed to serve the means of attaining divine, karmic ends and avoiding moral degradation of the self. Participants talked about their beliefs regarding a sacred world and that divinity permeates the social order as well as the individual self. Thus, there is a continuous and rich exchange between the self, others, and the realms of divinity. Such a system offers a complex set of values, generating a distinct framework of morality. Given its intricacy, we think it would be not only difficult but also futile to conceptualize the Indian moral worldview without acknowledging the intersection of personal, social, and spiritual aspects of morality. Thus, our perspective differs from the traditional developmental accounts of morality that view these domains as distinct (e.g., Turiel). It further supports research that calls for the need to understand and appreciate the dynamics between the individual, social, and spiritual realms of morality (e.g., Kapadia & Bhangaokar, Chapter 4, this volume; Hickman & DiBianca Fasoli, Chapter 7, this volume).
The cultural-developmental approach offers tremendous scope to capture these cultural characteristics in moral development. Unlike early theories of morality, it acknowledges the legitimacy of multiple cultural worldviews and, most importantly, the role of divinity in moral reasoning. The Three Ethics manual is also helpful in capturing the diverse pool of moral concepts across cultures. We believe that the inclusion of indigenous concepts such as dharma, karma, and paap is necessary to make the manual more effective for Indian society. Additionally, there is a need to further explore the role of specific divinity concepts in moral reasoning and the different conceptualizations that may exist among cultural groups. An example would be the cultural understandings of reciprocity. In the Three Ethics manual, reciprocity falls under the Ethic of Autonomy, where it conveys the understanding that an individual helps another individual with the expectation of direct, immediate, and proportional reciprocity in return. However, in the qualitative section of this chapter we present an alternate view on reciprocity in which the consequences of reciprocal behavior go beyond the self to involve spiritual benefits. Thus, an individual does something for the other with the implicit understanding that the returns will be to the spiritual self (hence not necessarily immediate), as sanctioned by God. It would be fruitful for future research to study culturally grounded conceptualizations of specific moral concepts to understand the different cultural meanings associated with them.
We also feel the immense need for more developmental examinations of the Ethic of Divinity, which can inform us about developmental trajectories across the life span in India and other cultures. Our study shows that younger children use more Divinity in their reasoning than do older children. This finding has little support from previous studies largely based on cognitive theories. Kapadia and Bhangaokar (Chapter 4, this volume) show that in India adolescents use Autonomy significantly more than adults do, whereas adults use Divinity more than adolescents do. Shedding light on adolescents’ agentic development, Trommsdorff (Reference Trommsdorff and Jensen2015) asserts that developing an individual and social identity gains prominence during adolescence. Thus, the developmental trajectory in India may involve early emergence of Divinity in children's moral thought and reasoning, which seems to take a back seat during adolescence because their awareness about their autonomous and social selves takes center stage. Later, the use of Divinity seems to rise again during adulthood. However, this developmental trajectory of the Ethic of Divinity remains a speculation as a result of insufficient research focus and, thus, offers immense scope for future research. Longitudinal examinations, in particular, would yield a better understanding of how age interacts with this ethic in the context of moral reasoning.
Last, we wish to draw attention to the need for research involving different socioeconomic groups within a culture. Social class continues to be a major defining element of Indian society, especially in the contemporary times of globalization and change. In order to represent the Indian population, we think it is imperative to engage all sections of the society in research and to have their representation in the academic world. Our study is an attempt to do the same. We assert the need for more studies that focus on how economic conditions and resource availability influence moral orientations and the development of moral reasoning.
