In a quiet suburban daycare, a four-year-old girl receives a sticker each time she shares a toy. By the time she turns six, her willingness to share diminishes when stickers are no longer offered. Observing this change, caregivers find it puzzling. However, a German philosopher, Immanuel Kant, foresaw exactly this consequence over 200 years ago in his university lectures.
Immanuel Kant maintained that when children are taught to behave well purely in exchange for rewards, they tend to grow into adults who prioritize self-interest rather than genuine moral values. He did not dispute that rewards influence behavior. Instead, he believed they make children follow rules too effectively, undermining deeper moral understanding.
Kant’s central caution remains strikingly clear: “If you punish a child for being naughty, and reward him for being good, he will do right merely for the sake of the reward; and when he goes out into the world and finds that goodness is not always rewarded, nor wickedness always punished, he will grow into a man who only thinks about how he may get on in the world, and does right or wrong according as he finds advantage to himself.”
This last part is crucial. A child raised through transactional incentives doesn't become immoral but rather becomes one who evaluates actions based on personal gain. Kant saw this not as a shortcoming of discipline but as a fundamental flaw in teaching morality. The behavior was never truly internalized—it was essentially borrowed.
Insights Into Reward-Based Motivation from Kant’s Perspective
When a child earns a treat for sharing or loses screen privileges for misbehaving, the connection between action and consequence is made. Yet, as Kant pointed out, what remains unlearned is the underlying reason why sharing is virtuous or hurting others is wrong outside of immediate personal outcomes.
This method fosters what he described as a transactional mindset. The guiding question shifts from “Is this the right choice?” to “What will happen to me if I do this?” While this may be subtle in a compliant child, it becomes evident when incentives disappear and desired behaviors fade.
Kant’s alternative was grounded in the idea of duty. Moral actions carry true value only when performed because they are inherently right, not driven by pleasure, fear, or any benefit. His Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785) elaborates that rational beings recognize moral duties through reason alone—without any rewards or punishments. The righteousness of an action lies solely in the intention behind it.
Psychological Evidence Supporting Kant’s Theory
Modern research validates mechanisms Kant proposed long before controlled studies were possible.
In a 1973 experiment published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, researchers Mark Lepper, David Greene, and Richard Nisbett divided preschoolers into three groups: one expecting a reward for drawing, one unexpectedly receiving a reward, and one not rewarded. Later, those anticipating a reward spent only half as much time drawing on their own compared to the other two groups.
The takeaway was not merely that rewards dampen motivation but that anticipated rewards undermine intrinsic interest. Children who created art for enjoyment continued freely, while those motivated by promised incentives ceased once those incentives vanished. Their behavior was conditioned, not chosen.
Edward Deci and Richard Ryan furthered this exploration at the University of Rochester. Their extensive 1999 meta-analysis in Psychological Bulletin reviewed 128 studies confirming that physical rewards substantially reduce intrinsic motivation, particularly in children. Yet, rewards are not useless. Rather, they foster compliance instead of true commitment. A child returning a lost wallet for promised ice cream practices strategic trade-offs, not honesty.
The Uphill Moral Task Outlined by Kant
Kant proposed a more demanding moral framework for parents. According to him, moral laws must be self-imposed. He introduced the categorical imperative—the idea that one must act only on principles they’d want universally followed. The focus shifts from personal gain to whether one would accept their behavior as a universal standard.
In his University of Königsberg lectures on education, Kant acknowledged that young children struggle with abstract morals. Still, he insisted moral education guide children toward duty from the start, even if understanding isn’t immediate. The ultimate aim is a character that endures without external supports.
In everyday life, however, Kant’s ideals confront real challenges. A parent monitoring morning behavior with tracking apps participates in a transactional system Kant would likely criticize. Yet, pragmatically, parents often lack the time for moral discourse before breakfast. The critique is philosophical; practical alternatives remain complex.
Contemporary Parenting Approaches vs. Kantian Philosophy
Developmental psychologist William Damon, ex-director of Stanford's Center on Adolescence, opposed Kant’s rigid stance. His 1988 book The Moral Child posits that moral growth is a developmental journey. Children require nurturing that respects their stage, not dogmatic rules or lofty abstractions. Damon argued, “no amount of rote learning or indoctrination will prepare children for the many diverse situations that they will face in life.” He noted Kant’s approach demands cognitive maturity children don’t yet possess and consistency many parents find difficult to maintain.
Dr. Becky Kennedy, a clinical psychologist and founder of Good Inside parenting platform, reaches a related conclusion. Initially relying on reward-punishment frameworks, she observed that these methods “feel awful for kids and parents.” Instead, she draws on attachment theory, mindfulness, emotion regulation, and internal family systems.
Kennedy agrees with Kant’s skepticism of transactional parenting but substitutes the abstract concept of duty with warmth and strong guidance. Rather than urging children to reason toward universal laws, she encourages parents to recognize the child beyond their behavior.
Her approach does not claim to resolve Kant’s dilemma but aims to make the challenge manageable at home. Since its 2020 launch with Erica Belsky, Good Inside offers parents practical tools rooted in psychological insights, adaptable to children who are not yet fully rational agents.
The tension between Kant’s ideals and developmental science isn’t unresolved due to a lack of debate. It remains because nurturing internal moral compasses and managing daily behavior are fundamentally different goals. Rewards encourage short-term obedience but come at a moral cost. Kant’s vision asks for deep maturity that unfolds unevenly and gradually. The science supports Kant’s concerns but doesn’t make his path any simpler.
- Categories:
- News
0 comments
Sign in to Comment