Lawrence Kohlberg, an American psychologist, was among the pioneers of moral development research. Building on from the original propositions of Jean Piaget, Kohlberg theorised that humans develop their moral judgements in 6 stages. To confirm his theory, Kohlberg interviewed boys between the ages of 10 and 16. He then analyzed how they would justify their decision when confronted with different hypothetical moral dilemmas. Superimposing the participants’ argumentation onto their cognitive development, Kohlberg postulated, that humans progress through the stages in a hierarchical order, as their cognitive abilities develop. To see how it works and try it yourself, read on! Show The full story Lawrence Kohlberg’s theory claims that our development of moral reasoning happens in six stages. The stages themselves are structured in three levels: Pre-Conventional, Conventional and Post-Conventional. To understand this better, imagine a conflict at school. There is a fight in the schoolyard. Two ninth-graders are beating up Tom. Those who watch the fight are at different stages of moral development. Let’s see what they do and how they justify their behavior. Stage 1: Obedience and punishmentAt stage one, we make moral judgments based on obedience and punishment. Finn’s sense of good and bad is directly linked to whether he gets punished or not. Finn sees what is happening to his friend and wants to help. He doesn’t, however, because he is afraid the teacher may punish him if he gets caught fighting. He asks himself, how can I avoid punishment? Stage 2: Self-interestAt stage two, we are motivated by self-interest. Mary decides to intervene and help Tom. She knows that she might get punished, but she also knows that she could become a victim herself, someday. If she helps Tom now, he might help her in the future. She is asking herself: What’s in it for me? Stage 3: Interpersonal accord and conformityAt stage three, interpersonal accord and conformity guide our moral judgments. Betty sees the fight and wants to intervene, but when she realizes that all the others are just watching, she decides not to get involved. She wants others to see that she is a good girl, who is conforming with the ethics of the community. She asks herself: What do others think of me? Stage 4: Authority and maintaining social orderAt stage four, we value authority and want to maintain social-order. When the teacher sees the group fighting, he immediately steps in and shouts: “Stop, fighting at school is forbidden!”. He feels that, above all, it is important to follow the rules, otherwise chaos breaks out and that it is his duty to uphold the rules that sustain a functioning society. The teacher at that moment asks himself: How can I maintain law and order? Stage 5: Social contractAt stage five, we understand rules as a social contract as opposed to a strict order. Jessy, who watches from afar, is not sure how she feels about this. To her, rules make sense only if they serve the right purpose. Obviously, the school rules prohibit fighting, but maybe Tom deserves to finally learn his lesson. Just yesterday he punched a young girl from grade one. She asks herself: Does a rule truly serve all members of the community? Stage 6: Universal ethical principlesAt stage six, we are guided by universal ethical principles. All those involved now have to face the headmaster. He first explains the school rules, and why they exist. He then clarifies that rules are valid only if they are grounded in justice. The commitment to justice carries with it an obligation to disobey unjust rules. The headmaster’s highest moral principle is compassion. He believes that all people should learn to understand each other’s viewpoints and that they don’t feel alone with their feelings. He asks: What are the abstract ethical principles that serve my understandings of justice? Pre-conventional levelAt the pre-conventional level, Finn is driven by fear and Mary by self-interest. Both judge what is right or wrong by the direct consequences they expect for themselves, and not by social norms. This form of reasoning is common among children. Conventional levelAt the conventional level, Betty responds to peer pressure, and the teacher follows the rules. Their morality is centered around what society regards as right. At this level, the fairness of rules is seldom questioned. It is common to think like this during adolescence and adulthood. Post-conventional levelAt the post-conventional level, Jessy knows that things are complicated because individuals may disobey rules inconsistent with their own morality. The headmaster follows a universal ethical idea, at complete disconnect with what society thinks or the rules say. To him everything is solved through compassion. The right behavior in his opinion, is therefore never a means to an end, but always an end in itself. Not every person reaches this level.
SourcesDig deeper!Classroom exerciseWe will now present to you the most famous moral dilemma Kohlberg presented to his students. Let’s see what you would do: The Heinz dilemmaA woman was on her deathbed. There was only one drug that the doctors thought might save her. The druggist that made that particular medicine sold it for ten times the price of the production costs. The sick woman’s husband, Heinz, was poor and could not afford to buy the drug, not even with the financial help of his friends. Heinz then asked the pharmacist to sell it to him for half the price, but he refused. To save the life of his wife, Heinz broke into the man’s laboratory and stole the medicine. Now, tell us:
Please write your answers and their justifications in the comments below! To see how the answers relate to each of Kohlberg’s stages, read more about the Heinz Dilemma on Wikipedia. By Saul McLeod, updated 2013 Kohlberg's theory proposes that there are three levels of moral development, with each level split into two stages. Kohlberg suggested that people move through these stages in a fixed order, and that moral understanding is linked to cognitive development. The three levels of moral reasoning include preconventional, conventional, and postconventional. Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development By using children's responses to a series of moral dilemmas, Kohlberg established that the reasoning behind the decision was a greater indication of moral development than the actual answer. Lawrence Kohlberg (1958) agreed with Piaget's (1932) theory of moral development in principle but wanted to develop his ideas further. He used Piaget’s storytelling technique to tell people stories involving moral dilemmas. In each case, he presented a choice to be considered, for example, between the rights of some authority and the needs of some deserving individual who is being unfairly treated. One of the best known of Kohlberg’s (1958) stories concerns a man called Heinz who lived somewhere in Europe.
Kohlberg asked a series of questions such as:1. Should Heinz have stolen the drug? 2. Would it change anything if Heinz did not love his wife? 3. What if the person dying was a stranger, would it make any difference? 4. Should the police arrest the chemist for murder if the woman died? By studying the answers from children of different ages to these questions, Kohlberg hoped to discover how moral reasoning changed as people grew older. The sample comprised 72 Chicago boys aged 10–16 years, 58 of whom were followed up at three-yearly intervals for 20 years (Kohlberg, 1984). Each boy was given a 2-hour interview based on the ten dilemmas. What Kohlberg was mainly interested in was not whether the boys judged the action right or wrong, but the reasons given for the decision. He found that these reasons tended to change as the children got older. Kohlberg identified three distinct levels of moral reasoning: preconventional, conventional, and postconventional. Each level has two sub-stages. People can only pass through these levels in the order listed. Each new stage replaces the reasoning typical of the earlier stage. Not everyone achieves all the stages. The 3 levels of moral reasoning include Level 1 - Preconventional moralityPreconventional morality is the first stage of moral development, and lasts until approximately age 9. At the preconventional level children don’t have a personal code of morality, and instead moral decisions are shaped by the standards of adults and the consequences of following or breaking their rules. For example, if an action leads to punishment is must be bad, and if it leads to a reward is must be good. Authority is outside the individual and children often make moral decisions based on the physical consequences of actions. • Stage 1. Obedience and Punishment Orientation. The child/individual is good in order to avoid being punished. If a person is punished, they must have done wrong. • Stage 2. Individualism and Exchange. At this stage, children recognize that there is not just one right view that is handed down by the authorities. Different individuals have different viewpoints. Level 2 - Conventional moralityConventional morality is the second stage of moral development, and is characterized by an acceptance of social rules concerning right and wrong. At the conventional level (most adolescents and adults), we begin to internalize the moral standards of valued adult role models. Authority is internalized but not questioned, and reasoning is based on the norms of the group to which the person belongs. A social system that stresses the responsibilities of relationships as well as social order is seen as desirable and must, therefore, influence our view of what is right and wrong. • Stage 3. Good Interpersonal Relationships. The child/individual is good in order to be seen as being a good person by others. Therefore, answers relate to the approval of others. • Stage 4. Maintaining the Social Order. The child/individual becomes aware of the wider rules of society, so judgments concern obeying the rules in order to uphold the law and to avoid guilt. Level 3 - Postconventional moralityPostconventional morality is the third stage of moral development, and is characterized by an individuals’ understanding of universal ethical principles. These are abstract and ill-defined, but might include: the preservation of life at all costs, and the importance of human dignity. Individual judgment is based on self-chosen principles, and moral reasoning is based on individual rights and justice. According to Kohlberg this level of moral reasoning is as far as most people get. Only 10-15% are capable of the kind of abstract thinking necessary for stage 5 or 6 (post-conventional morality). That is to say, most people take their moral views from those around them and only a minority think through ethical principles for themselves. • Stage 5. Social Contract and Individual Rights. The child/individual becomes aware that while rules/laws might exist for the good of the greatest number, there are times when they will work against the interest of particular individuals. The issues are not always clear-cut. For example, in Heinz’s dilemma, the protection of life is more important than breaking the law against stealing. • Stage 6. Universal Principles. People at this stage have developed their own set of moral guidelines which may or may not fit the law. The principles apply to everyone. E.g., human rights, justice, and equality. The person will be prepared to act to defend these principles even if it means going against the rest of society in the process and having to pay the consequences of disapproval and or imprisonment. Kohlberg doubted few people reached this stage. Problems with Kohlberg's Methods1. The dilemmas are artificial (i.e., they lack ecological validity)Most of the dilemmas are unfamiliar to most people (Rosen, 1980). For example, it is all very well in the Heinz dilemma asking subjects whether Heinz should steal the drug to save his wife. However, Kohlberg’s subjects were aged between 10 and 16. They have never been married, and never been placed in a situation remotely like the one in the story. How should they know whether Heinz should steal the drug? 2. The sample is biasedAccording to Gilligan (1977), because Kohlberg’s theory was based on an all-male sample, the stages reflect a male definition of morality (it’s androcentric). Mens' morality is based on abstract principles of law and justice, while womens' is based on principles of compassion and care. Further, the gender bias issue raised by Gilligan is a reminded of the significant gender debate still present in psychology, which when ignored, can have a large impact on the results obtained through psychological research. 3. The dilemmas are hypothetical (i.e., they are not real)In a real situation, what course of action a person takes will have real consequences – and sometimes very unpleasant ones for themselves. Would subjects reason in the same way if they were placed in a real situation? We just don’t know. The fact that Kohlberg’s theory is heavily dependent on an individual’s response to an artificial dilemma brings a question to the validity of the results obtained through this research. People may respond very differently to real life situations that they find themselves in than they do with an artificial dilemma presented to them in the comfort of a research environment. 4. Poor research designThe way in which Kohlberg carried out his research when constructing this theory may not have been the best way to test whether all children follow the same sequence of stage progression. His research was cross-sectional, meaning that he interviewed children of different ages to see what level of moral development they were at. A better way to see if all children follow the same order through the stages would have been to carry out longitudinal research on the same children. However, longitudinal research on Kohlberg’s theory has since been carried out by Colby et al. (1983) who tested 58 male participants of Kohlberg’s original study. She tested them six times in the span of 27 years and found support for Kohlberg’s original conclusion, which we all pass through the stages of moral development in the same order. Problems with Kohlberg's Theory1. Are there distinct stages of moral development?Kohlberg claims that there are, but the evidence does not always support this conclusion. For example, a person who justified a decision on the basis of principled reasoning in one situation (postconventional morality stage 5 or 6) would frequently fall back on conventional reasoning (stage 3 or 4) with another story. In practice, it seems that reasoning about right and wrong depends more upon the situation than upon general rules. What is more, individuals do not always progress through the stages and Rest (1979) found that one in fourteen actually slipped backward. The evidence for distinct stages of moral development looks very weak, and some would argue that behind the theory is a culturally biased belief in the superiourity of American values over those of other cultures and societies. 2. Does moral judgment match moral behavior?Kohlberg never claimed that there would be a one to one correspondence between thinking and acting (what we say and what we do) but he does suggest that the two are linked. However, Bee (1994) suggests that we also need to take account of:
Overall Bee points out that moral behavior is only partly a question of moral reasoning. It is also to do with social factors. 3. Is justice the most fundamental moral principle?This is Kohlberg’s view. However, Gilligan (1977) suggests that the principle of caring for others is equally important. Furthermore, Kohlberg claims that the moral reasoning of males has been often in advance of that of females. Girls are often found to be at stage 3 in Kohlberg’s system (good boy-nice girl orientation) whereas boys are more often found to be at stage 4 (Law and Order orientation). Gilligan (p. 484) replies: “The very traits that have traditionally defined the goodness of women, their care for and sensitivity to the needs of others, are those that mark them out as deficient in moral development”. In other words, Gilligan is claiming that there is a sex bias in Kohlberg’s theory. He neglects the feminine voice of compassion, love, and non-violence, which is associated with the socialization of girls. Gilligan concluded that Kohlberg’s theory did not account for the fact that women approach moral problems from an ‘ethics of care’, rather than an ‘ethics of justice’ perspective, which challenges some of the fundamental assumptions of Kohlberg’s theory. Download this article as a PDF How to reference this article:McLeod, S. A. (2013, October 24). Kohlberg's stages of moral development. Simply Psychology. www.simplypsychology.org/kohlberg.html APA Style ReferencesBee, H. L. (1994). Lifespan development. HarperCollins College Publishers. Colby, A., Kohlberg, L., Gibbs, J., & Lieberman, M. (1983). A longitudinal study of moral judgment. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 48 (1-2, Serial No. 200). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gilligan, C. (1977). In a different voice: Women's conceptions of self and of morality. Harvard Educational Review, 47(4), 481-517. Kohlberg, L. (1958). The Development of Modes of Thinking and Choices in Years 10 to 16. Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Chicago. Kohlberg, L. (1984). The Psychology of Moral Development: The Nature and Validity of Moral Stages (Essays on Moral Development, Volume 2). Harper & Row Piaget, J. (1932). The moral judgment of the child. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. Rest, J. R. (1979). Development in judging moral issues. University of Minnesota Press. Rosen, B. (1980). Moral dilemmas and their treatment. In, Moral development, moral education, and Kohlberg. B. Munsey (Ed). (1980), pp. 232-263. Birmingham, Alabama: Religious Education Press. Download this article as a PDF How to reference this article:McLeod, S. A. (2013, October 24). Kohlberg's stages of moral development. Simply Psychology. www.simplypsychology.org/kohlberg.html Home | About Us | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Contact Us Simply Psychology's content is for informational and educational purposes only. Our website is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. © Simply Scholar Ltd - All rights reserved |
In which level of cognitive moral development is an individual who judges morality actions by their direct consequences?
Related Posts
Copyright © 2024 SignalDuo Inc.
