 I welcome you all once again to my channel Explore Education and I am Dr. Rashmi Singh, Assistant Professor of the Department of Education at the Skarna Girls' Tree College, University of Allahabad and it is my email ID. The lecture will be in my lingual mode and we are going to discuss a new topic today, Moral Development. In moral development, we have to study pride's theory, PRJ's theory, Colbert's theory and Turiel's theory in which I have firstly started with JPRJ. And this lecture will be useful for various teaching examinations and do subscribe my channel for getting my new videos and for my previous videos too. So, let's start. Moral Development. Our paper's name is Development of Learner. That's why we are covering all the developments in detail in which we have developed cognitive development, language development and you are talking about moral development. Nathik Vikas. How does Nathik Vikas happen in children? What is the meaning of Nathikta? How do they understand the difference between right and wrong? How do they take decisions? All these things have been thought and told us in the form of theory. So, we have to pay attention to one thing, that the PRJs have their main theory of cognitive development and they have talked about language development and they have also talked about moral development. Moral development is not a brand new theory. It is a cognitive development. So, first of all, what is Morality? Moral Development? Morality is a code of conduct. We all know that Nathikta is a way of acting. That guides our actions and thoughts. Based on our own background and what is the basis of it? Where do we come from? What does our culture belong to? What is the philosophy of our life? What are our religious beliefs? All these things decide how we work and how we think. Then, Moral Development is a gradual change in the understanding of morality. That means, we are not always moral. We are not children. Why? Because there is no development of that kind. Children sometimes do not think about your point of view. And then we are sometimes angry at them that you do not think like that. Because their thinking is not developed at that time. Then, children's ability to tell the difference between right and wrong is a part of their moral development processes. This is the yoga of children in which they can tell, they can make a difference that what is right and what is wrong. This is a part of their Nathik Vikas. Then, as their understanding and behavior toward others evolve over time. That means, what is the development of time? How do we keep our understanding and behavior towards others? When do we become worthy of understanding the other's side? They apply their knowledge to take the right decisions even when it is inconvenient for them to do so. That means, when they learn to take other's advice, when they understand the perspective, then they apply that knowledge to them so that they can take the right decision. Despite this, they will have difficulty in taking the right decision. It will not be easy for them to take the right decision. Even then, they will take the right decision. If they understand it, they will have lost their Nathik Vikas. Then, according to P.A.J, for P.A.J, children's moral development is closely related to their cognitive development. That is, the child's Nathik Vikas is very different from the Sanjana Atmak Vikas. In other words, children are only capable of making advanced moral judgments once they become cognitively mature and see things from more than one perspective. They are saying that only then can the Nathik Vikas be of advanced level. Only then can the Nathik Vikas be of advanced level. When the Sanjana Atmak Vikas has been confirmed, and things are worthy of seeing from the perspective of others, then we will understand the other's side. When we will only understand our side, then we will not be able to take the right decision. As you said, P.A.J has given his theory in 1932. P.A.J formulated the cognitive theory of moral development in the moral judgment of the child in 1932. So, this is the question that comes up in 1932. Then, his theory of children's moral development is an application of his ideas on cognitive development. That is, the Sanjana Atmak Vikas, according to his thoughts, he used the same theory and said that the child's Nathik Vikas is like this. Then, P.A.J conceptualizes moral development as a constructive process whereby the interplay of action and thought builds moral concept. He says that the Nathik Vikas is a Sanjana Atmak Prakriya. He is a constructivist. That is, the construction of it. And in construction, who is playing a role? Action and thought. That is, what do we do and what do we think? These are the two interplay. They are interplayed. And our Nathik Sam Pratya is a rule. P.A.J was principally interested, not in what children do. That is, P.A.J was not interested in this. He was not interested in what the child was doing. But in what they think. In fact, what he thinks. Why? Because his whole theory is on Sanjana. So, Sanjana means thinking. So, what is the child doing? It does not mean what is the child thinking. What is he thinking about? In other words, he was interested in children's moral reasoning. In other words, we can say that what was he interested in? Why? He was interested in the child's Nathik Tarka Karnaikikshamta. What is that? And what are the three main points in which our moral development and moral issues have been discussed? P.A.J was interested in three main aspects of children's understanding of moral issues. They were, what were they? First, children's understanding of rules. What is the concept of rules in children? Understanding of moral responsibility. What is the responsibility of Nathik in them? And what is the concept of justice? That is, these are the rules. Moral responsibility, justice. So, this also became a question. That he will give you four options. And he will say which one is not or which one is. The issue on which P.A.J talks about rules, responsibility, justice, something else will be thick, something will be something. You should tell them that they have talked about rules, moral responsibility, and justice. Then, he tells the stages of that way or he talks about moral thinking of P.A.J. He says that children think of two ways. Nathik is concerned about two ways of child. One is heteronomous morality and an autonomous morality. He has discussed this morality completely. He says that heteronomous morality is of moral realism. And the autonomous morality is of moral relativism. Heteronomous means, hetero means vision. Otto means sum. That is, vision means that there is an inclusion of another third party. And autonomous means that we think like this. You can understand from this. Realism means that it was. Relativism means that we will become relative as soon as we see the other party. He is telling the time period of normal morality. When a child is up to 5-9 years old, he thinks like this. If he is above 9 years old, he goes to the autonomous morality. So, what is heteronomous morality? He says that the stage of heteronomous morality is also known as moral realism. He talks about this here. That we know heteronomous morality as moral realism. Then morality imposed from the outside. Heteronomous means that we think in a certain way. It means that there is an inclusion of a third party. Who is the third party here? An authoritative figure. He is saying that the child that is shown here is imposed from the outside. That is why heteronomous is common. And when we think from the inside that it is right or wrong, that it is right or wrong, then it becomes autonomous. So, morality is imposed from the outside. This is clear. Then children regard, sorry. Children regard morality as obeying other people's rules and laws which cannot be changed. Children believe that other people have made some rules. These rules are not changing. These rules are not changing. These rules are not changing. And we have to believe them. Children regard morality as obeying other people's rules. That is, they have not made any other rules which cannot be changed. For example, universal. They cannot be changed. Then they accept that all rules are made by some authority figures. They believe that all the rules are made by some authority. For example, the parents have made them. The teachers have made them. And that breaking the rules will lead to immediate and severe punishment. And what does he believe? If he breaks the rules, what will happen? He will be punished. He will be punished immediately. For example, we teach children that if they lie, then God will get angry, God will give sins, etc. So, he thinks that these rules are made by God. God has made the rules. The parents have made them. The teachers have made them. The teachers have made them. They will not be punished. That is why they believe that they will not be punished. For the sake of the punishment. Then during this stage, During this stage, children consider the rules as being absolute and unchanging or divine. They think the rules are absolute. That means that in every age, we have to accept them in the same way. What was the purpose of that behaviour? It has nothing to do with it. It has nothing to do with the fact that we didn't have a purpose to recognise or do anything wrong. It is just the result that is observable. What they can see is that they feel that they have done a lot of harm. It doesn't matter if we did it intentionally or intentionally or what was our purpose behind it. Therefore, a large amount of accidental damage is viewed as worse than a small amount of delivery damage. They say that it happened accidentally or accidentally. But if there is a big loss, they think it is too much of a harm. Whereas, if we intentionally harm someone, even if they are small, they think it is less of a harm. Then why are they saying moral realism? Children send to judge naughtiness in terms of the severity of the consequences, rather in terms of motives. It is a result of how difficult, how dangerous and how difficult it is to judge whether the act is good or bad. What was the purpose behind it? This is what Piaget means by moral realism. Piaget says that this is moral realism. In Yathart, as it is real, we consider it as real. Whereas, when we go into moral relativism, they will think relatively. Then they will think from the perspective of the other person. Once again, you should know that we should look at it with the help of cognitive development. So, you should know that what state will be in cognitive development until the age of 9 years. So, according to this, when you cross 9 to 10, cognitive development will be in the state of development. So, all these things must be given to you. Then, Autonomous Morality. You are saying that the stage of Autonomous Morality is also known as moral relativism. Morality based on your own rules. You are saying that when we make our own rules, then we come into Autonomous Morality. Children recognize that there is no absolute right or wrong and that morality depends on intentions, not consequences. When a child comes to this level, it is understood that nothing is always right or wrong. Absolute right or wrong is not a thing. And Naitikta says that our goal is not that what the result is. Then Piaget believed that around the age of 9 to 10, children's understanding of moral issues underwent a fundamental reorganization. When a child reaches a certain state, the understanding of moral issues becomes a fundamental reorganization. But now, they are beginning to overcome the egocentrism of middle childhood. We have learned that when a child is in the early stages of cognitive development, he becomes egocentrism. He thinks only about himself. He has not understood the perspective of the other child. So, what happens here is that slowly, the child starts to get away from egocentrism. He overcomes it. That is, we understand that we have to understand each other too. Middle childhood and have developed the ability to see moral rules from other people's point of view. That is, we get the advantage that the Naitikta Nia develops the way of looking at other people's perspective. Children begin to realize that if they behave in ways that appear to be wrong, but have good intentions, they are not necessarily going to be punished. They begin to understand that they are doing something that may seem wrong to them. But they do not know if their intention was wrong or not. So, it is not necessary that they are punished. This understanding develops them. Thus, for them, a well-intentioned act that turned out badly is less blame-worthy than a malicious act that did no harm. They say that here they understand that if we intentionally do not want to do anything bad, but if something bad happens, then we will have to bear less blame. Whereas, if we want to do something very bad, even if something bad has not happened to others, they understand that it is wrong. That is, there should be intention. There should be no more emphasis on the consequence, rather there should be more emphasis on the intention. Intention should not be wrong. This understanding comes into the Autonomous morality. So, they have only shown two types of morality. The heteronomous and the Autonomous. The heteronomous is the Autonomous. In the heteronomous, we understand that the rules cannot be changed. The rules cannot be changed. The rules are not changed. The rules are made by others. The rules are made by elders. And we have to believe in them. And they do not have any intention. They just see that what is wrong is wrong. Then in the Autonomous, we understand that we understand the other aspects. We overcome the egocentrism. We understand that the intention should be right. We get all these things in the Autonomous morality. So, if we want to critically evaluate, then reliability and validity are less. Why is reliability less? This research is based on very small samples. Do you know that you yourself researched on your children about cognitive development. And they applied cognitive development on language development, on moral development. So, reliability is less. This method is not standardized and therefore not replicated. Then what is validity? The biggest problem of validity is that whatever they thought, they did the testing. Whatever they did not think, they did not do the testing. Whatever was not in their minds, they did not do the testing. So, their validity is less. What he thinks, he is testing. Hence, it is not very much valid too. Then understanding children's trait of development. They are saying that there are nine children in the heteronomous and heteronomous environment. A lot of researchers have told us that the children are super smart. We feel that they are not following any stage of development. And very smart from the very beginning. So, understanding children's trait of development may be discrepancy. PRG argued that the shift from moral realism to moral relativism up to the age of 9 and 10. This is changing in the heteronomous and heteronomous and in the heteronomous environment. And their children, younger than this, do not take motives into account when judging how much someone is to blame. They are saying that a smaller child does not understand that we have to blame according to the motive. But other researchers suggest that children develop an understanding of the significance of subjective facts at a much earlier age. We also tell the other side of the story that a very early child feels subjective. The other side of the story, the other side of the story, the other side of the story, does not need to go to 9-10 years. So, this is a critical evaluation of PRG's theory. This theory has a very, you can say, solid ground in the field of moral development. And based on this, Kolberg Sahab extensions this theory and tells us three major stages of which two sub-sub-stages make up six stages of moral development. And the most popular theory of moral development is Kolberg's theory of moral development which we will discuss later. Okay? So, one theory is done today. Thank you. And don't forget to like and subscribe to my channel Explore Education. Okay? So, thank you so much. Thank you. I'll see you in the next video. Thank you. Bye-bye.