The age at which young children begin to make moral discrimination about harmful actions committed against themselves or others has been the focus of recent research into the moral development of children. Until recently, child psychologists supported pioneer developmentalist Jean Piaget in his hypothesis that because of their immaturity, children under age seven do not take into account the intentions of a person committing accidental or deliberate harm, but rather simply assign punishment for transgressions on the basis of the magnitude of the negative consequences caused. According to Piaget, children under age seven occupy the first stage of moral development, which is characterized by moral absolutism (rules made by authorities must be obeyed) and imminent justice (if rules are broken, punishment will be meted out). Until young children mature, their moral judgments are based entirely on the effect rather than the cause of a transgression. However, in recent research, Kensey found that six-year-old children not only distinguish between accidental and intentional harm, but also judge intentional harm as naughtier, regardless of the amount of damage produced. Both of these findings seem to indicate that children, at an earlier age than Piaget claimed, advance into the second stage of moral development, moral autonomy, in which they accept social rules but view them as more arbitrary than do children in the first stage.
Kensey’s research raises two key questions for developmental psychologists about children under age seven: do they recognize justifications for harmful actions, and do they make distinctions between harmful acts that are preventable and those acts that have unforeseen harmful consequences? Studies indicate that justifications excusing harmful actions might include public duty, self-defense, and provocation. For example, Nesdalc and Rule concluded that children were capable of considering whether or not an aggressor’s action was justified by public duty; five year olds reacted very differently to “Bonnie wrecks Ann’s pretend house” depending on whether Bonnie did it “so somebody won’t fall over it” or because Bonnie wanted “to make Ann feel bad.” Thus, a child of five begins to understand that certain harmful actions, though intentional, can be justified: the constraints of moral absolutism no longer solely guide their judgments.
Psychologists have determined that during kindergarten children learn to make subtle distinctions involving harm. Darley observed that among acts involving unintentional harm, six-year-old children just entering kindergarten could not differentiate between foreseeable, and thus preventable, harm and unforeseeable harm for which the perpetrator cannot be blamed. Seven months later, however, Darley found that these same children could make both distinctions, thus demonstrating that they had become morally autonomous.
1. Which of the following best describes the passage as a whole?
2. Darley found that after seven months of kindergarten six year olds acquired the ability of（ ）.
3. According to the passage, Piaget and Kensey would not have agreed on（ ）.
4. The term “public duty”（in line 5 of paragraph 2）in the context of the passage means（ ）.
5. Kensey’s findings support which of the following conclusions about six-year-old children?
问题1选项
A.An outline for future research.
B.An expanded definition of commonly misunderstood terms.
C.An analysis of a dispute between two theorists.
D.A discussion of research findings in an ongoing inquiry.
问题2选项
A.differentiating between foreseeable and unforeseeable harm
B.identifying with the perpetrator of a harmful action
C.justifying harmful actions that result from provocation
D.evaluating the magnitude of negative consequences resulting from the breaking of rules
问题3选项
A.the kinds of excuses children give for harmful acts they commit
B.the age at which children begin to discriminate between intentional and unintentional harm
C.the intentions children have in perpetrating harm
D.the circumstances under which children punish harmful acts
问题4选项
A.the necessity to apprehend perpetrators
B.the responsibility to punish transgressors
C.an obligation to prevent harm to another
D.the assignment of punishment for harmful action
问题5选项
A.They have the ability to make autonomous moral judgments.
B.They regard moral absolutism as a threat to their moral autonomy.
C.They do not understand the concept of public duty.
D.They make arbitrary moral judgments.
第1题:D
第2题:A
第3题:B
第4题:C
第5题:A
第1题:
主旨大意题。结合选项和题干可知，本题需从全文整体分析。第一段中Kensey和Piaget两人提出了有关儿童心理发展的不同观点，随后的二三段都是在对Kensey的观点进行讨论和论证。A选项“An outline for future research”意为“未来研究的大纲”，原文并未提及未来研究的大纲；B选项“An expanded definition of commonly misunderstood terms”意为“对常见误解术语的扩展定义”，原文不是对误解术语的扩展定义，是提出了两个不同观点；C选项“An analysis of a dispute between two theorists”意为“对两个理论家之间争论的分析”，原文二三段主要论证了Kensey的观点，并没有就两者的争论进行分析；D选项“A discussion of research findings in an ongoing inquiry”意为“对正在进行的调查中研究结果的讨论”，符合原文，此处指的就是对Kensey研究结果的讨论。因此D选项符合题意。
第2题:
事实细节题。由seven months of kindergarten定位到文章最后一段最后一句“Seven months later, however, Darley found that these same children could make both distinctions, thus demonstrating that they had become morally autonomous”，然而，七个月后，达利发现，同样是这些孩子已经可以做出两种区分，从而表明他们在道德上是自发的。由此可知，进入幼儿园七个月后，孩子们已经能区别可预见和不可预见的伤害。A选项“differentiating between foreseeable and unforeseeable harm”，意为“区分可预见和不可预见的伤害”，与原文相符；B选项“identifying with the perpetrator of a harmful action”意为“辨认有害行为的作恶者”，原文未提及；C选项“justifying harmful actions that result from provocation”意为“为因挑衅而导致的有害行为辩护”，原文是这不是Darley的研究发现，是针对Kensey观点的研究结果；D选项“evaluating the magnitude of negative consequences resulting from the breaking of rules”意为“评估因违反规则而产生的负面后果的大小”，原文中这是Piaget的观点，不是Darley的发现。因此A选项符合题意。
第3题:
判断推理题。结合选项和题干可知，本题需逐个分析各个选项。A选项“the kinds of excuses children give for harmful acts they commit”意为“孩子们为他们所做的有害行为找的种种借口”，这只是针对Kensey观点的研究结果，但不代表二者就此有分歧；B选项“the age at which children begin to discriminate between intentional and unintentional harm”意为“儿童开始区分故意伤害和无意伤害的年龄”，与原文相符，原文第一段第四句，然而， Kensey发现，6岁的儿童能区分意外伤害和故意伤害。由此可推测这就是两者观点的不同之处；C选项“the intentions children have in perpetrating harm”意为“孩子们实施伤害的意图”，原文两者争论的重点不是孩子实施伤害的意图，而是孩子究竟何时开始辨别有意与无意的伤害；D选项“the circumstances under which children punish harmful acts”意为“儿童惩罚有害行为的情形”，这是Nesdalc和Rule的研究发现，不是Piaget与Kensey之间的分歧。因此B选项符合题意。
第4题:
判断推理题。由public duty定位到文章第二段第三句“For example, Nesdalc and Rule concluded that children were capable of considering whether or not an aggressor’s action was justified by public duty…”，例如，Nesdalc和Rule的结论是，儿童有能力考虑侵犯者的行为是否符合公共义务；五岁的孩子对邦妮破坏了安的假房子的反应非常不同，这取决于邦妮这么做是为了防止别人摔倒，还是因为邦妮想让安难过。由此可知，这个事例是对公共义务的解释，所以公共义务就是防止他人受损害的义务，如防止他人摔倒。A选项“the necessity to apprehend perpetrators”意为“逮捕罪犯的必要性”，与原文不符，原文未提及逮捕罪犯；B选项“the responsibility to punish transgressors”意为“惩罚犯规者的责任”，原文Nesdalc和Rule的结论中儿童并没有对犯规者进行惩罚；C选项“an obligation to prevent harm to another”意为“防止损害他人的义务”，与原文相符；D选项“the assignment of punishment for harmful action”意为“对有害行为的惩罚分配”，该结论中并没有谈到惩罚。因此C选项符合题意。
第5题:
判断推理题。由Kensey’s findings定位到文章第一段最后一句“Both of these findings seem to indicate that… in which they accept social rules but view them as more arbitrary than do children in the first stage”，这两项发现（Kensey的发现）似乎都表明，儿童比皮亚杰所说的更早进入道德发展的第二阶段，即道德自主。由此可知，儿童已经能自主做出道德判断。A选项“They have the ability to make autonomous moral judgments”意为“他们有能力自主做出道德判断”，符合Kensey的理论；B选项“They regard moral absolutism as a threat to their moral autonomy”意为“他们把道德绝对主义看作是对他们道德自主权的威胁”，原文未提及道德绝对主义；C选项“They do not understand the concept of public duty”意为“他们不理解公共义务的概念”，与原文不符，就Nesdalc和Rule的结论而言，孩子已经理解公共义务的概念；D选项“They make arbitrary moral judgments”意为“他们武断地做出道德判断”，与原文不符，原文是进入道德自主阶段的儿童认为规则武断，而不是儿童武断地做出道德判断。因此A选项符合题意。
