Moral Development ResearchMoral development is more than simply gaining the experience and understanding to make the “right” decision when faced with a dilemma, it is being comfortable in how you will function within that knowledge. With adolescents, they are often unaware of how to make many of these decisions, and without the proper guidance, they may make choices that will negatively affect themselves, and/or those around them. There are many opportunities for adults to offer guidance to today’s youth, but it seems as if we have some opportunities to do better.
Antisocial behavior typically peaks during adolescence, this is a time for questioning societal and moral norms, but some chose to push it further (Schulman, et al., 2011). There could be any number of reasons for this for each individual. However, when looking at the bigger picture, it seems there is a lack in moral development nurturing that takes precedence in modern society. Strong moral codes are not as strictly enforced in the home, schools do not have the resources available to address problems (Berk, 2010), and our media is plagued by immoral imagery and ideas.
Alfred Adler had a theory that would provide the framework necessary to promote healthy moral development nurturing through exposing children and adolescents to activities that would bring social interest to life. Some of these activities could be community service events, open discussion where free thought is not just allowed, but promoted, projects, books, etc. (Ostrovsky, Parr, & Gradel, 1992). Not only is this issue being addressed in scholarly journals all over the globe, but in media outlets as well. People are concerned with the moral relativism found in the home, schools, and communities and are pushing for action in order to prevent further decay of our youth’s moral development (Nickson, 2004).
The Problem of Public Opinion in Today’s Global Masses
The question of the future of public opinion in many areas is hotly debated. Some consider it essential to preserve a “healthy” American public discourse that is robust and honest in describing the future of our society. A recent report by the Institute for Policy and Leadership (IPSL) offers a unique challenge to this approach in public debate through the discussion among the mainstream media, the media’s elected representatives, and other institutions. The report states: “Many public, nonnational groups, especially the media, have made similar statements about public opinion, and some argue that the public can and should do more to address the issue. The recent public opinion survey for the National Conference of the Presidents of Major American Societies—the most sophisticated public opinion survey in history—is based on a total of 9,800 interviews. These interviews include 5,000 adults, of whom 30% say that public opinion is more important to their country than it is to the public itself.” The report also warns: “This is not to say that the major media and mainstream governments, such as American newspapers, do not support free speech. The media and its representatives are often too easily led to believe that free speech is a necessary good and some voices, for which they pay dearly (Peters et al., 2006). They do not. Their policy prescriptions are not supported by empirical research which is based on objective and widely understood empirical data. Indeed, public opinion will continue to be distorted in some respects, but so will other aspects in our society. As one recent survey suggests, both liberals and conservatives may indeed have taken a more expansive view of social problems (Gibson, 2012). But this has not been the case for much longer. To make matters worse, the media and their supporters have long advocated the spread of the word about issues of social and political importance, such as climate change, and the role played by liberal-conservative political groups in public debate. In fact, the leading voice of this message is Hillary Clinton, who was endorsed by several prominent media companies and has consistently raised these issues for her presidential campaign (see “The Case for Hillary and the Media,” p. 909). The 2016 campaign is a particularly worrisome example to those hoping to use a public policy initiative and media platform to advocate for public policy (Anderson, 2006; Kip et al., 2003).
The National Organization for Marriage (NOM), as the official lobby against same-sex marriage in America, has promoted its own anti-gay ideology (“The Gay Marriage Lobby,” 1999). The organization’s support of same-sex marriage is no accident, especially since the current campaign to repeal and regulate same-sex marriage, and even the proposed repeal, of the federal constitutional ban on issuing marriage licenses for people of the same