Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development

Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral DevelopmentLawrence Kohlberg was a cognitive

psychologist who applied developmental psychology specifically to moral development. He identified three primary stages of moral development and two sub stages within each. The three primary stages are:

Pre-conventional moral thinkingConventional moral thinkingPost-conventional moral thinking

Background

The theory concerns itself with the reasons behind an action, and not the action itself

Six people can do the same thing , but each of them may do it for different reasons

People are attracted to higher stages

Encountering moral dilemmas allows for growth

Stages of Moral ReasoningLEVEL 1 (Pre-Conventional) – FOCUS ON THE

SELFStage 1: Punishment and ObedienceStage 2: Personal Usefulness

LEVEL 2 (Conventional) – FOCUS ON OTHERSStage 3: Conforming to the Will of the GroupStage 4: Authority and Social Order (Law and

Order)

LEVEL 3 (Post-Conventional) – FOCUS ON PRINCIPLES

Stage 5: Social Contract and Human RightsStage 6: Universal Ethical Principles (Personal

Conscience)

Level 1: Pre-Conventional Level – Focus on the Self

Stage 1 – Punishment and ObedienceThis stage generally occurs from the ages of

2-6At this stage, children see rules as fixed and

absolutePhysical consequences determine the

goodness or badness of an act.Avoidance of punishment is the key

motivationThe person submits to power and authority to

avoid punishment

ExampleYou do your chores because you do not want to get grounded.

Stage 2 – Personal UsefulnessThis stage generally occurs from the ages of

7-11What is right is that which satisfies one’s own

needs and occasionally the needs of others.Human relations and fairness are interpreted

in a physical and pragmatic way – what is useful to me?

“You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” is the basic mentality and motivation.

ExampleVolunteering at a retirement home for community service hours

Level 2: Conventional Level – Focus on the Group

Stage 3 – Conforming to the Will of the Group

This stage generally occurs from the ages of 11-25

Good behaviour is that which pleases or helps others and gets approval from them

One conforms to standard ideas of appropriate behaviour

One earns acceptance by being ‘nice’People in this stage have a great

desire to belong to a group even if it means compromising their own individual belief system

ExampleYou allow your friend to cheat off your test because you want him/her to appreciate you and give you compliments for doing so.

Stage 4 – Law and OrderThis stage generally begins around age 15

until 25One sees obedience to rules for their own

sake as a necessary to maintain orderRight behaviour consists of doing one’s duty

and respecting authorityFlaws in the system are due to failure of the

individuals to obey the system

ExampleYou decide not to J-walk because it is against the law.

Level 3: Post-Conventional Level – Focus on Principles

Stage 5 – Social Contract and Human Rights

This stage can be reached around ages 21-25The right action is described in terms of

general values that have been agreed upon by the whole society

Laws are justified because they maintain social order

One may work within the system if they desire to change the law for the betterment of society

Right action is seen as a matter of respecting the democratically accepted values of society

Largely based on the principles of ethical relativism

ExampleBecause women were resorting to back-alley abortions you decide to encourage the government to legalize abortion. You work with existing social structures to improve a situation.

Stage 6 – Personal ConscienceThis stage generally begins around age 15

until 25Right is a decision of personal conscience in

agreement with abstract ethical principles that apply to all persons everywhere.

Decisions are based upon universal principles of justice, the reciprocity and equality of human rights, and respect for the dignity of human beings as individual persons

Choices are grounded in genuine moral interest in the well-being of others, regardless of who or where they are.

Largely based on the principles of ethical absolutism

ExampleBecause you believe the principle

that all human life should be respected equally regardless of the circumstance you try to change the existing social structures (cultural, media, religious) that make pregnant woman believe that their only real alternative is abortion. In this case you will most likely be working against existing social institutions.

The RealityThese are natural stepsThere is no stage-skipping, but sometimes we

slip back when we are stressedSomeone can be at different levels in various

aspects of lifeOne can reason one way and act another waySome individuals become stuck in one stage –

not everyone reaches mature morality15-20% of American adults continue to think at

the pre-conventional level – ½% reach Stage 6

Biases

Men base moral judgement on principles of impartial justice, fairness, and equity

Women base moral judgement on principles of caring, nurturing and responsibility

Women experience intimacy, care and concern at an earlier age than men

Kohlberg’s Dilemma ExampleA woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to produce. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $ 1,000, which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said, "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it." So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug for his wife. Should Heinz have broken into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?

Pre-Conventional ExamplesSTAGE DESCRIPTION

Examples of Moral Reasoning Favouring Heinz’s Theft

Examples of Moral Reasoning Opposing Heinz’s Theft

Punishment and Obedience

- He should steal the drug, because he offered to pay for it and because it is only worth $200, not the $2000 the druggist was charging- He should steal it because if he let’s his wife die, he would fall into a depressive state

-He shouldn’t steal the drug, because he might get caught and sent to jail-his law-breaking would cause him to feel guilty

Personal Usefulness

- It is alright to steal the drug, because his wife needs it to live and he needs her companionship- He should steal the drug, because his wife needs it and he isn’t doing any harm to the druggist because he can pay him back later

- He shouldn’t steal the drug, because he might get caught and his wife would probably die before he gets out of jail – it wouldn’t do much good- He shouldn’t steal, because the druggist was not doing a bad thing by wanting to make a profit

Pre-Conventional ExamplesSTAGE DESCRIPTION

Examples of Moral Reasoning Favouring Heinz’s Theft

Examples of Moral Reasoning Opposing Heinz’s Theft

Conforming to the Will of the Group

- He should steal the drug, because society expects a loving husband to help his wife regardless of the consequences- He should steal the drug, because if he didn’t his family would think he was an uncaring human

- He shouldn’t steal the drug, because he will bring dishonour on his family and they will be ashamed of him- He shouldn’t steal the drug, because no one would blame him for doing all he could legally (The druggist would be the heartless one)

Law and Order

- He should steal the drug, because if he did nothing, he would be responsible for his wife’s death. He should take it with the idea of paying the druggist back- He should steal the drug, because if people like the druggist are allowed to get away with being greedy and selfish, society would eventually break down

- He should not steal the drug, because if people are allowed to take the law into their own hands, regardless of how they justify it, social order would break down- He shouldn’t steal the drug, because it’s still always wrong to steal

Post-Conventional ExamplesSTAGE DESCRIPTION

Examples of Moral Reasoning Favouring Heinz’s Theft

Examples of Moral Reasoning Opposing Heinz’s Theft

Social Contract and Human Rights

- The theft is justified, because the law is not set up to deal with the circumstances in which obeying it would cost a human life.- It is not reasonable to say that stealing is wrong, because the law should not allow the druggist to deny someone access to a life saving treatment

- You can’t really blame him for stealing the drug, but even such extreme circumstances do not justify a person taking the law into their own hands- He shouldn’t steal the drug, because eventually he would pay the price of loss of self-respect for disregarding the rules of society

Universal Ethical Principles

- He must steal the drug, because when a choice must be made between disobeying a law and saving a life, one must act in accordance with the higher principle of preserving and respecting life- He is justified in stealing the drug, because if he had failed in this action to save his wife, he would not have lived up to his own standards of conscience

- Heinz must consider the other principle who need the drug just as much as his wife. By stealing the drug he would be acting in accordance with his own particular feelings with utter disregard for the value of all the lives involved- He should not steal the drug, because though he would probably not be blamed by others, he would have to deal with his own self-condemnation, because he did not live up to his own conscience and standards of honesty.