A Philosophical, Neurological and Psychological Understanding
of Adolescent Decision-Making
Jodi Fishbein
Morality is a concept that is not easily defined because it encompasses so
many facets and nuances. It is also not limited to one discipline since morality can be
explored from the perspective of philosophy, neurology and psychology. No matter
the discipline, morality is considered a concept that develops. No one expects a baby
to understand or be guided by morality, while an adult would be held to a moral
standard. The teenage years, which fall between childhood and adulthood, are a
particularly interesting period in human moral development. The teenage years
present a microcosm to explore this phenomenon. A philosophical approach to moral
duty does not distinguish between ages, but rather examines the nature of morality
and the motivation and obligation to make moral decisions. A neurological
perspective contributes to an understanding to how the brain affects moral decisionmaking, and explains how teenagers struggle with morality since they have all of the
“equipment” to make moral decisions, but the “equipment” is not completely set up to
work at its ideal level. A psychological lens into adolescent development also
enhances an understanding of teenagers’ decisions, as they begin to develop their own
sense of morality.
Philosophically, morality can be defined in three different ways. The first
definition stems from the area of philosophy known as Metaethics, which deals with
the nature of morality and moral language. This approach deals with issues such as
cognitivism, non cognitivism, and moral relativism. An example of cognitivism,
which is an analysis of how humans process information, would be a memory test
administered to an Alzheimer’s patient. The usual test is asking the patient to
1
remember a couple of words, do another action, and then ask the patient to recite
those words. Similar types of situations are repeated. The way that a cognitivist would
explain morality would be that it is dependent on how an individual would process
specific situations or experiences. Would he not remember specific aspects of what
happened? Would he look at things in a different light than his neighbor? How would
he judge the situation? All of these questions contribute to the perspective of
cognitivism, such that one’s morality is fluid because it changes based on situation.1
The second type of metaethics is noncognitivism, or the idea that because
sentences do not express propositions, they cannot be true or false. A noncognitivist
would believe that every statement is infused with personal ideas. This type of
philosophy says that a moral judgment’s primary function is not to express beliefs,
although it could possibly express them in a secondary way; a person could make a
statement that they believe is a moral judgment, but is really their viewpoint of
morality in judgment of a situation. There is no substance supporting a statement
made that would prove it inherently as true or false--every person’s definition of
morality cannot be proven as the true definition.
Moral relativism, the third type of metaethics, is the idea that moral judgments
are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint--there is no such idea as a
universal moral law. This form of philosophy is exhibited when a decision is made
solely based on either the nature of a certain situation, the culture of a certain
situation, or the individual making the call in a certain situation. What was viewed as
moral in Nazi Germany would not be viewed as moral in today’s American society;
this proves that no moral definition is universally accepted, and that no moral
definition would apply to all generations. Rather, morality is morphed to fit a
1
http://www.alz.org/health-care-professionals/cognitive-tests-patient-assessment.asp#vids
2
particular society’s cultural norms. While it was considered unethical to save a Jew
during World War II, today, a Jewish life in most countries would be protected from
persecution. Overall, metaethics seems to imply that if there even is such a concept as
morality, it is based on the person, place, and time that the decision is being made.
The second philosophical approach to morality, normative ethics, provides a
moral framework that can be used to work out what kind of actions are good/right and
bad/wrong. This is divided further into three subsections. Virtue ethics, the first
subsection, emphasizes moral character. Virtuists, such as Aristotle, would look at
each situation and act subjectively, for they believe that each situation requires
different virtues to be used. Deontology, the second subsection, focuses on
duties/rules, and consequentialism. Teenagers are basing their moral decisions on the
repercussions that would occur--not what is in their mind truly moral. The third
subsection, applied ethics, seeks to apply the normative ethical theories (concepts that
attempt to describe and explain certain phenomena) to specific cases in order to allow
for a “moral” outcome.
Many philosophers have attempted to define a specific community’s morality.
Some sects, often religious groups, act morally because they believe God commands
them to do so. Divine command moralists argue that God dictates the standards of
morality. Others act morally because they believe people need a stable and
harmonious community. Therefore, they surrender some of their own personal
autonomy to a larger moral order in return for a safe place to live.
In his book The Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes states that there is no such concept
of morality. He writes that when a code of morality is being created, the same virtues
and vices that were analyzed at the beginning of time are being analyzed, but the
people who analyze them may have different definitions of what is good and what is
3
evil, leading to a diluted sense of morality. He believes that morality is based solely
on what the leaders of a group believe, not on what is true and correct.2 This
personalization of morality does not lend itself to be a philosophy from which moral
principles can be extrapolated or that can be studied universally. Hobbes also writes
that man is constantly changing his thoughts and ideas based on the nature of his
surroundings. Before societies came into being, and people lived on their own, there
were no concrete labels of “good or evil”—those definitions were based on each
man’s surroundings. Hobbes states that societies, when formed, create a standard of
what good or evil is; only then can a society function in the proper manner.
Hobbes believes that “Moral Philosophy is nothing else but the science of
what is good and what is evil." 3 He questions how we define actions as moral or
immoral. His driving question is does God command an action because it is morally
right, or is the action morally right because God commands it? He answers as follows:
“These dictates of reason men used to call by the name of laws, but
improperly: for they are but conclusions or theorems concerning what
conduceth to the conservation and defence of themselves; whereas law,
properly, is the word of him that by right hath command over others. But yet if
we consider the same theorems as delivered in the word of God that by right
commandeth all things, then are they properly called laws.”4
Thomas Aquinas, a Catholic theologian, addresses this same question.
Aquinas believes in Natural Law theory, which states that good is to be done and evil
2
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, (London: Dent, 1973 [first pub. 1651]), Chapter XVI.
3
Ibid.
4
Ibid., Chapter XIV
4
is to be avoided in order to follow God’s will. Living one’s life according to this
philosophy will thereby merit the person a place in heaven. Aquinas believes that God
is the source of morality because morality is an outgrowth of the character God. God
is not subject to an external moral law, but rather He is that moral law.
A pressing question then became “why are people tempted to sin if they base
their moral principles off of God, a being who does not sin?” Aquinas explains that
God created people with a certain nature; this nature allows for positive reactions,
both internal and external, when they act with kind and moral character traits. God did
not create man in a mold which tells him how to live--rather God created man in a
way that allows him to make his own decisions. However, God created a world such
that it will flourish only when humanity acts morally and in accordance with God’s
will. While one is given the template to act morally and be accepted into society, he or
she has the opportunity to deviate from that set path and thereby not be accepted into
society. A liar who acts immorally will often inflict harm upon himself; he or she will
experience a lack of trust, guilt, and the inability to interact with other people in a
normal way. The liar will thereby have great difficulty being able to function as a
valued member of society. Mankind must live lives marked by love for and from God
and other humans in order to live as fulfilled human beings.5
Hobbes believes that human beings do not strive for happiness. Rather,
humans strive for power, which, left unchecked, will ultimately lead to violence, war
and death. He says that actions are not moral because God commands them, rather,
morality stems from the needs of the community. Whereas Aquinas views God as an
external source of morality, Hobbes’ definition of a moral code is that it is a social
5
Finnis, John, "Aquinas' Moral, Political, and Legal Philosophy", The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy (Summer 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2014/entries/aquinas-moral-political/>. 3.4 Some Examples
5
contract, drawn up by humans only so that they can participate in a community in
which each person’s quest for power does not lead to anarchy and mayhem. In order
to take part in this group and thereby survive, man gives up his right to everything.
Some of that power is endowed to the sovereign leader of the community, who the
community hopes will use it wisely. Law that is based on the nature of a situation
only comes into play when the nature of a situation is rationalized, and the final
product is in man’s self-interest. As he states,
“Nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice,
have there no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law; where
no law, no injustice.”6
According to Hobbes, there is no such thing as a true evil or a true good, therefore,
man cannot be deemed moral or immoral based on a universal standard. In a
Hobbesian society, acting lawfully is only done for the self-interest of “it will keep
my society safer” which will in turn “keep me safer.” People do not want to act in
moral ways, but people do want to live. Society is created based on the idea that
without morality there is no such thing as life--one will die a savage death if there are
no rules. Life is chaos; and the idea of morality is a tool used by society to keep itself
in check. The punishments that people are subjected to if they do not act in a moral
way is what keeps people from acting out. According to this view then, there is no
ultimate morality, only a set of arbitrary standards that society has placed on itself to
keep it functioning properly.
Such a philosophical analysis of morality can contribute to an understanding
of moral decision-making during the adolescent period. During teenage years, teens
6
Thomas Hobbes, 1958: Ch.13, 108
6
build their own moral hierarchy based on what is acceptable to their peer groups.
Teens tend to make their decisions, moral and otherwise, based on what is “in,” or
what their friends are doing or encouraging them to do. Peer and group pressure are a
huge factor in a teenager’s decision making process because teens are constantly
looking to be validated and approved. In a Harvard University study, teens were put in
a driving experiment in which teens and adults were told that they would receive a
reward if they ran a yellow light but stopped before hitting the wall. In the
observations, scientists noted that not only were the teenagers more likely to run the
yellow light, but it was teenagers who had friends on the sidelines encouraging them
who ran the light more often. This demonstrates that not only are teens willing to take
risks, but they are more likely to do so when peer or group pressure is involved.7
In another experiment, one actor pretends to bully another actor in front of
bystanders. However, no bystander was willing to jump into the attack to defend the
actor being bullied. Many bystanders said that they would have jumped in had the
bullying worsened, but they were not given the opportunity because the actors broke
character to interview the bystanders. Most people believe that bullying is something
that should be stopped as soon as it begins--yet no bystanders were willing to be the
one to stop it, thus showing that individuals do not want to deviate from their peer
group.8
Like Hobbes’ theory, teens are willing to sacrifice some of their autonomy to
be accepted into an ordered society. A social hierarchy develops in which the Alphateens reign sovereign due to their popularity and others look to them for approval.
The power surrendered to the Alpha-teen is a deposit that the submitter will not be
7
8
http://www.health.harvard.edu/mind-and-mood/the-adolescent-brain-beyond-raging-hormones
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=48&v=EisZTB4ZQxY
7
subject to any form of negative behavior from the Alpha-teen. However, even with
this safety deposit, when a “popular teen” bullies, or otherwise mistreats, another teen,
it is unlikely that anyone would stand up to the bully. Most people have a slight fear
of the “popular teen,” and because they submitted their own power over themselves to
this individual, none of them feel that it is within their power to stand up for the
mistreated.
Aquinas, on the other hand, would likely view this situation from a more
religious perspective. He would say that in the Bible there is a commandment that
prohibits embarrassing a fellow man, and thus the bully is to some extent, defying
God’s wishes. Aquinas would consider the bully an outlier in society, since man has a
responsibility to make themselves, God, and others happy, but this bully is living in
order to make others miserable. Not only does this not give him merits in the
Heavenly Court, but he also does not fit into society and its norms.
While the philosophy of morality does not distinguish between moral
obligations at various ages, the field of neuroscience views morality as a series of
stages of brain development. Adults have a more developed brain and are able to use
their fully developed neurological system in decision making. Teens, on the other
hand, do not have fully developed brains, which weakens their decision making
abilities and can lead them to act very differently than adults in the same situation.
Teenage brains react to situations differently and make less developed choices
than those of adult brains. For example, the prefrontal cortex is the area of the brain
that controls decision-making and curbs impulses that communicate to other parts of
the brain. This part of the brain does not become fully developed until the age of mid20s. Thus, it is common for teens and young adults to make decisions that are
impulsive, or not completely thought out.
8
In addition to impulsivity, the nucleus accumbens, which is a part of the brain
that seeks pleasure and reward, develops fairly early on during a teenager’s lifetime.
Therefore, the nuclear accumbens is fully developed during teenage years while the
prefrontal cortex is not, which may cause a teen to make a decision based on its thrill
factor or how fun it sounds before truly thinking through the consequences. Adults
who have a completely developed prefrontal cortex along with a completely
developed nucleus accumbens do not make as many impulsive decisions that may
lead to negative consequences. The decision making process goes through each
person’s brain, and the outcome of the decision is dependent on the stage of
development of his neurological system. An adult’s decision making process is
complete--their nucleus accumbens do not overpower the prefrontal cortex anymore
because it is completely formed. Whereas, a teenager’s decision making process is
incomplete-- their nucleus accumbens overpower the prefrontal cortex because it is
completely developed, while the prefrontal cortex is not.
An illustrative example of impulsive adolescent decision-making due to
neurological development is drunk driving. Research demonstrates that teenagers are
involved in one in five incidents of alcohol-related car crashes;9 eight teens die every
day in DUI related car crashes,10 while only twenty adults, a much larger sample size
who assumingly have greater access to alcohol , die from DUI crashes.11 Aside from
the negative effects that alcohol has on a teenage brain (blackouts, memory loss, brain
damage,) the statistic also reflects the decision of whether or not to drive drunk. Based
on their neurological development, adults likely have a more thought-out approach in
these types of situations because, while their nucleus accumbens may be telling them
9
http://www2.courtinfo.ca.gov/stopteendui/parents/facts/teen-driving-crash-and-fatality-stats.cfm
10
http://www.learn-about-alcoholism.com/drunk-driving-car-accidents.html
11
http://www.madd.org/drunk-driving/about/drunk-driving-statistics.html General Drunk Driving
9
that driving drunk will be a thrill-inducing experience, their fully developed prefrontal
cortex steps in and informs the adult that doing so would be detrimental to themselves
and others. However, teens do not have a fully developed prefrontal cortex to curb
this impulse; therefore, teenagers make these types of risk taking decisions mainly
based on the positive hormone release from the nucleus accumbens, which tells the
teen that the risky behavior will be thrilling. This thought process is the reason why
60% of teenage death is due to driving while under the influence.12 On average, a
person will drive drunk 80 times before getting arrested. Due to this, most adults who
drive drunk began doing so at a young age before their brain was completely formed,
and since they have yet to be caught, they rationalize their behavior. This
rationalization causes them to actively choose to go against what the prefrontal cortex
is telling them to do.
Neurologically, morality is something that requires both a fully developed
brain, and the willingness to listen to what the brain instructs. Teens who have the
underdeveloped prefrontal cortex, but the completely developed nucleus accumbens
scientifically cannot make a moral decision. The thrill factor, or if present, the peer
pressure, is too much for the teen to handle--this causes them to make quick, not well
thought out decisions, that often defy their semi-developed definition of morality.
There is a third approach to morality--the psychological approach.
Psychologists view morality as that which is acquired; one does not simply gain a
sense of morality based on his or her age, but rather a moral consciousness is formed
based on the experiences he or she has had. Morality is dependent on what
psychological stage one is at--children, teenagers and adults each have a very
different way of looking at morality.
12
http://www.learn-about-alcoholism.com/statistics-teenage-drunk-driving.html
10
Jean Piaget explains the way that a person’s thought process forms by
distinguishing between four stages in the process. The first stage is called
Sensorimotor Stage and identifies how infants only learn through their mistakes.
Infants are aware of only what is in front of them and believe that objects cease to
exist once they are no longer in their line of vision. Infants lack the knowledge of
how things work, so they constantly experiment with the items that are in front of
them—they shake and throw things, they put things in their mouths, and they learn
through trial and error. Late parts of this stage lead to oriented goals and desired
results. Between 7 and 9 months, infants begin to realize object permanence, which is
a sign that memory is developing. Once infants begin physical mobility, cognitive
development increases. Language development is a sign that the child is developing
symbolic abilities.
The next stage, the Preoperational Stage is when memory and imagination are
developed, which allows the young child to think symbolically and understand the
difference between past and future. The thought process is still based on intuition and
is not completely logical. Thus, young children are still unable to grasp the more
complex concepts of cause and effect, time, and comparison.
The third stage, the Concrete Operational Stage is when logical, concrete
reasoning is present. Children’s thinking becomes less ego based and they become
increasingly aware of external events. They recognize that everyone has their own
thoughts and feelings, but still cannot think abstractly or hypothetically.
The fourth stage, the Formal Operational Stage, begins at age eleven. Children
logically use symbols that relate to abstract concepts. They can think in systematic
ways, formulate hypotheses, and consider possibilities. They can also understand and
11
think about abstract relationships and concepts.13 Piaget did not believe that
intellectual development continued throughout an entire lifetime, rather, he insisted
that this was the final stage of cognitive development, and that continued intellectual
development in adults depends on the accumulation of knowledge.14
Piaget’s stages help explain how human develop their decision making ability.
Infants lack the cognition to recognize any outside information that is not about them.
Only as people develop do they take an interest in external objects, and begin to
experiment with how they work. From then on, people become able to see external
objects and situations in a more thoughtful way. However, children at such an age are
unable to think for themselves, but rather are told what to believe or do. The child
will do whatever the parent does with the belief that the parent is telling him things
that will benefit him.
Only after the child goes through the formal operational stages are they able to
think through what they are told, and decipher whether or not they want to comply
with what they are told to do. At this point in their development, children have the
ability to look at the bigger picture and, using their own knowledge based on prior
experiences, think for themselves.
Psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg took Piaget’s stages and related them to
moral development. He developed three levels of moral understanding, each with two
sub-stages, which must be followed in order to reach a developed sense of morality.
Level one is the pre-conventional level, which occurs to children from birth to around
nine years old. At this point, most children have developed a moral code that is
13
Educational Psychology in Context: Readings for future teachers Bruce A. Marlowe, Alan S.
Canestrari
SAGE, 2006 (105-106)
14
http://ehlt.flinders.edu.au/education/DLiT/2000/Piaget/stages.htm
12
shaped by the standards of the adults surrounding them and the consequences that
come with following or breaking those set rules. Subsection one of level one focuses
on the issues of obedience and punishment orientation. The child behaves in order to
avoid punishment. The way that the child views a situation is that if he or she gets
punished, it must be because he or she did something wrong. The second subsection
of this level is that of individualism and exchange. At this point, the child realizes that
there is not just one correct view being handed down by a greater authority, rather,
individuals have different viewpoints and moral codes.
Level two is the conventional level. At this time, humans begin to internalize
the moral standards of adult role models. Authority is internalized, not questioned,
and moral reasoning is based on the norms of the group to which the person belongs.
The first subsection of level two is good interpersonal relationships. The child
behaves in order to be viewed as a good person by other people. Moral decisions are
usually made based on the approval of others. The second subsection of this level
describes how to maintain the social order. The child becomes aware of society’s
wider rules, and therefore, his or her judgments are based on obeying the rules in
order to uphold the law and to avoid guilt.
The third level discusses individual judgment. This type of judgment is
subjective--it is tinged with the individual’s own idea of what rights people should
have. The first subsection of level three explores the social contract and individual
rights. The child becomes aware that while rules might exist for the good of the
greatest number, there are times when they will work against a smaller section of the
group—these issues are not always clear cut. The second subsection of level three is
universal principles. People at this stage have developed their own set of moral
13
guidelines, which may or may not fit the law. The principles apply to everyone,
however, Kohlberg believed that few people would become so advanced.15
Kohlberg imposes his view of moral development onto Piaget’s stages in order
show why the child develops the way he does in the realm of morality. In the
beginning, Piaget’s sensorimotor and preoperational stages fit into level one in
Kohlberg’s theory. According to Piaget, children are first learning about their
surroundings and are dependent on an adult figure to do their thinking for them. This
allows for the parent/adult figure to shape them in a moral way. The children’s sense
of morality at that point comes from what they are taught. The parent can impose their
idea of morality onto the child by means of punishment and teaching obedience, as
well as through explanation once the child becomes able to recognize that there are
other types of morality besides the one that is being taught to them.
Piaget’s third stage, the concrete operational stage, fits in well with
Kohlberg’s second level. Piaget recognizes that the child is now able to internalize
concepts that are fed to them and has the ability to take other people’s feelings into
account. At this point, Kohlberg says that the child acts morally in order to fit into
society. The child recognizes that there is a societal hierarchy, but he does not ask
questions, but rather simply accepts it. In order to be a functional member of society,
the child acts in accordance with society’s definition of morality. While the child may
have a different conception of morality, he follows societal standards strictly for the
sole purpose of being viewed as good by other people.
Piaget’s fourth and final stage maintains that by this point, the child has
developed all the tools for cognitive decision making. The child has the ability to
grow intellectually based on what knowledge the child chooses to internalize and
15
Lawrence Kohlberg, Stages of Moral Development, 1971
14
what experiences the child has endured. This fits with Kohlberg’s third level.
According to Kohlberg, at this point the child has developed the ability to formulate
his own definition of morality. The child does this while simultaneously adhering to
society’s general rules because he has recognized that the societal standards of
morality are directed towards the good of the greater community.
Teenagers are found to be at the end of Piaget’s stages, and in the middle of
Kohlberg’s levels. During this stage, adolescents have the complete ability to think
and act for themselves. Often, teenagers are found to have actually rebelled against
their community’s or their family’s standards. The teenager has become able to
analyze everything that they have been told and, while originally they may react in an
extreme way (often perceived as rebelling against familial or societal norms), they
ultimately settle down with their own definition of morality; usually a combination of
what the community tells them to do, as well as what the individual believes is right.
Thus, a teenager is in the middle of both processes. They have not yet experienced
enough of life to have the wisdom that comes with old age, but they are not young
enough that they can be spoon fed the rules of how to act. This allows for an
interesting moral process--the teen is in the middle of figuring out who they are and
what they want to be, so their moral development is based on both the community in
which they were raised, as well as their own personal experiences.
In May 2015 alone, four out of ten high school seniors reported that they had
illegally drunk alcohol, and half of high schoolers reported to have used drugs
throughout their time in high school.16 However, when the teenager had a close
16
Johnston, L. D., O'Malley, P. M., Miech, R. A., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. E. (2014).
Monitoring the Future national survey results on drug use: 1975-2013: Overview of key findings on
adolescent drug use. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan. Retrieved
December 26, 2014, fromhttp://www.monitoringthefuture.org//pubs/monographs/mtfoverview2013.pdf
15
connection with their parent who did not abuse substances, they were significantly
less likely to abuse substances themselves.17 This is one of the many examples that
proves that the teenager will use their own definition of morality in regards to new
situations, but the influence that a parent or community has plays a part as well.
Teens need a moral role model to guide them towards developing their own sense of
what is moral and what is not. A good relationship with a parent who is adhering to
the community’s definition of morality contributes to a teen’s moral development.
There are many factors that influence teenage moral decision making.
Philosophically, the community can arrive at the moral standards to which its
members subscribe from a religious (divine command morality) or societal (social
contract theory) perspective. Thus, teens can be motivated to act morally due to their
religious convictions or in their duties to maintain a harmonious society.
Neurologically, it is the nucleus accumbens and prefrontal cortex that impact a
person’s moral decisions. When such components of the brain are not fully developed,
teenagers’ moral decisions are impaired. Psychologically, adolescent moral decisions
are influenced by the community, personal experiences and an evolving sense of
morality as one develops his own identity. An examination of morality from a
philosophical, neurological and psychological perspective contributes to an
understanding of adolescents’ navigation of moral decision making during a
particularly challenging period of development as they emerge into adulthood.
17
National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2003). Preventing drug use among children and adolescents.
Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse. Retrieved December 26, 2014, from
http://www.drugabuse.gov/sites/default/files/preventingdruguse.pdf
16