I have to write a thesis paper on what age makes someone morally responsible. If you're familiar with Maslow's hierarchy of needs, I have to touch on that, as well as Kohlberg's stages. I was thinking about using the story about the 8-year-old being charged with murdering his father in my introduction, but not sure. Any opinions on what age and about the intro? Please support somewhat on what age. Thanks!

oh man, this is a great paper topic!
Hmm, there is really no set age, although the law states that one becomes truly morally responsible at 18 (In the U.S). Hmm, have fun trying to incorporate Maslow's stuff...I guess discuss how primary and secondary needs need to addressed and one can become morally responsible when they can independently provide primary needs...It shows that once someone can dress themselves and make a bowl of cereal, then they know that going to school naked and going hungry is not by society's standards wrong...hahah.

But for Kohlberg! Was he the one who came up with constructivism? Hmm, well, with the moral stages of development it definitely goes alongside Maslows pyramid in the sense that the child cognitively develops to think egocentrically and then develops and awareness. They develop morally intrinsically and then develop extrinsically. With that said, they first learn morally what will personally affect them (pre-conventional stages), and then morally learn what will affect others around them (Conventional and then post-conventional).

The story about that 8-year old i'm not personally familiar with, but you can definitely pull cognitive and moral development into how an 8 year old thinks and how an 8 year old should be tried!

I would love to read your paper once it is done :0)

oops...correction

"then they know that going to school naked and going hungry is not by society's standards wrong...hahah."

Then they know that going to school naked and going hungry is, by society's standards, wrong.

that actually sounds like a really cool paper to write! I wish my papers were that interesting.
I would say as soon as someone can determine right from wrong, they should be morally responsible. If a parent has taught them well (as that 8 year old's parents obviously havent) then they should know right from wrong, especially by eight.
I am familiar with Maslows hierarchy... but by familiar, i mean I studied it at uni last semester, but you cant really expect me to remember it! I would definately say that by the time they are starting school so by about age 6, they should be held responsible for their actions... a 6 year old should know that killing daddy is WRONG

I'm generally familiar with Maslow's hierarchy of needs, I basically remember from high school - If I were writing that paper, I would argue that there is no set age that a person becomes morally responsible. I might argue that someone would probably be morally responsible once they at least have met their needs in the Safety part of Maslow's pyramid. And that their sense of moral responsibility would grow as they transgress through the stages of love/belonging, esteem, and self-actualization (I used wikipedia by the way, I don't have these memorized or anything lol). I just looked up Kohlberg on wikipeda too, and you could easily integrate him into that argument as well.

But basically, I would argue that since everyone develops and matures in different ways, there can be no definite age when someone is considered morally responsible. And who defines what moral responsibility is anyway? How do you measure that, really?

Hopefully these ideas help. :)

I would say around 9-10 years old, as that is about when children have fully developed their adult personality. Though, I think one could argue that according to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, there is no age. No one would expect a homeless person to have the same moral responsibilities as a politician. A homeless person stealing an apple is different than Donald Trump stealing an apple.

I argue that theft is theft, and that circumstances do not change an action from being wrong to right.

The problem with that is when you look at other crimes, such as murder. If I went outside and shot someone on the street, I should be going to prison. Yet, I can sign up for the military, go to some other country, and make money while shooting people.

What is up for debate is an individual's moral responsibility. My argument is that the moral responsiblity changes with every individual's situation. You can't hold someone whose daily goal is to find someplace to sleep, and find food, to the same standard as someone who makes $8 million/year. You can go to the ghetto of anyplace and find crime everywhere, and no one bats an eyelash. Yet, if Britney Spears stole a candy bar, it will be all they talk about on CNN.

I can see where you're coming from. Someone who doesn't have the means to provide for their basic necessities may know that stealing something may not be RIGHT, but it's not entirely WRONG to them either because by doing so they are having that basic need met.

It doesn't make the act OK to do, though. It simply makes most people a little more understanding of the circumstance.

For example, most of us would agree that killing people is wrong. But frankly, if someone were threatening the life of my children, and my only way to protect my children would be to kill that person, I would probably do it. So where is the line between it being right and it being wrong?

Or as Return-to-Sender stated, soldiers. When they are on tour and kill someone of the enemy, is that right or wrong?

The line between what is right and what is wrong is not always a clear-cut line.

homeless person to have the same moral responsibilities as a politician

Exactly I would expect the homeless to be more moral than the politiian

Why is that?

I never met a politician that had any moral fiber

Isn't that kind of generalizing? Politicians are bad, homeless people are good?

I've never met an astronaut, but that doesn't mean they aren't around.

A good majority of those in politics at the lower level (i.e. local district officers) are quite moral and exercise a large degree of good judgment. Simply because the "big player" politicos in the media aren't quite upstanding citizens shouldn't taint politics, but rather, the base fault of humanity, symptomatic of all people, not a select group.

How do you define morally right or wrong? What criteria is being used? Is it universal? How do we know even if it is whether it is right?

GOSH, YO - I GET WHAT RETURN-TO-SENDER IS SAYING! MASLOW'S HIERARCHY OF NEEDS MEANS THAT IF YOUR BASIC NEEDS AREN'T FULFILLED YOU ARE NOT GOING TO LOOK TO FULFIL HIGHER NEEDS, LIKE THE NEED TO CONTRIBUTE MEANINGFULLY TO SOCIETY. YOU WILL FIRST NEED TO FULFIL THE NEED FOR FOOD, SHELTER, ETC.

HOWEVER, THERE ARE MANY WHO CHALLENGE THE IDEA OF MASLOW'S HIERARCHY OF NEEDS, AS INDEED PEOPLE ARE DOING HERE, AND SAY THAT THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN CONSTANT DANGER (IN A WARZONE, FOR INSTANCE) AND WHO DO NOT ALWAYS HAVE ENOUGH TO EAT, BUT THEY STILL GO OUT OF THEIR WAY TO HELP OTHERS. IN FACT, IN MY EXPERIENCE, IT IS THE POORER PEOPLE WHO ARE THE MOST GENEROUS AND HOSPITABLE - PERHAPS BECAUSE THEY KNOW WHAT IT IS LIKE TO SUFFER SO HAVE MORE IMMEDIATE COMPASSION, AND PERHAPS ALSO BECAUSE THEY HAVE LESS TO LOSE.

That's a great point. Moral responsibility varies from geographic location. I think in poorer countries or countries with bad living conditions, there's no one else to do it. But in places like the US, we can turn on the television, see a news report about some celebrity doing charity work, we feel the warmth in our hearts, and we smile and say, "Wow, people are great." and then move on with our lives.

I say 8ish. they've learned through school, tv, parents and friends what is right and wrong.
now making the right or wrong choices that's up to the idividual.

you could also use the 13 yr old girl from here that was found guilty of murdering her mom, dad and brother with her 23 yr old boyfriend.

I honestly don't think you can give a set age for moral responsibility. Yeah, we'd like to think that by a certain age a child knows what is right and wrong, and they really SHOULD, but the fact of the matter is that doesn't they DO. You also have to keep in mind that people with a sociopathic nature tend to NEVER know the difference between right and wrong, at least not by normal standards.

Does that mean they shouldn't still be punished for committing a crime that we see as wrong, even though THEY didn't see it as wrong? No, of course not. Even an eight year old murderer who might not have known the difference between right and wrong should be held accountable for the wrong actions. If they get off because they didn't meet the "requirements" for moral responsibility, then how are they EVER going to learn what is right and what is wrong? Obviously someone failed them early in life when that should have been taught, but that doesn't disqualify them from paying the consequences of their actions.

just because someone does something wrong doesn't mean that someone failed to teach them the differences between wrong and right. There are plenty of people out there that have taught me right and wrong, but still as an adult you still do things that bend the 'rules' so to speak....

for and example. you know stealing is wrong, and yet if you see something you want and don't have the money for, some people will steal it anyways, because they want it.? right? doesn't mean that they weren't taught that it isn't right, it just means that they've made the morally wrong decision.

I didn't say that just because they did something wrong means they were never taught right from wrong. But there ARE SOME people who that IS the case for.

Are you not also going to look at brain development? Like neurological evidence? Teenagers' brains have not yet developed to be able to fully comprehend and accept the long term consequences of actions in the same way that adults' brains have. So there are neurological limitations going on there, despite the fact that they are able to know right from wrong. It is very complex. So a 13-year-old does not have the same responsibility as a 23-year-old. But of course that doesn't mean that the 13-year-old is totally exempt from any moral responsibility. It's a continuum, maybe, until you get to a certain age.

And then what about old age, when people's brains lose plasticity. And the problem of dementia, where people do all kinds of things they'd never have done before. And mental illness, learning disabilities, etc. All these things affect the brain.

excellent point i.e the dementia. Also a very intresting concept/direction of thinking.. If there is a point when we gain moral responsibilty is there also a point when we (can) loose it again?