LAWRENCE KOHLBERG’S MORALITY DEVELOPMENT THEORY

Lawrence Kohlberg believed that people go through different stages of moral development as they get older.

Kohlberg’s Method

Kohlberg's (1958) core sample was comprised of 72 boys, from both middle- and lower-class families in Chicago.

They were ages 10, 13, and 16. He later added to his sample younger children, delinquents, and boys and girls from other American cities and from other countries (1963, 1970).

The basic interview consisted of a series of dilemmas such as the following:

Heinz Steals the Drug: In Europe, a 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 make. 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 the husband have done that? (Kohlberg, 1963, p. 19)

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?

What is your reasoning in this dilemma? Why? Explain your reasons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5czp9S4u26M

Kohlberg was not really interested in whether the subject said "yes" or "no" to this dilemma but in the reasoning behind the answer.

The interviewer wanted to know why the subject thinks Heinz should or should not have stolen the drug.

The interviewer then asked new questions which helped one understand the child's reasoning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTzBrjxKHLg#t=238 For example, children were asked if Heinz had a right to

steal the drug, if he was violating the druggist's rights, and what sentence the judge should give him once he was caught.

3 LEVELS OF KOHLBERG’S THEORY

each level contains 2 stages

Pre-conventional (up to age 10-11)

At the pre-conventional level (most nine-year-olds and younger, some over nine), we don’t have a personal code of morality. Instead, our moral code is shaped by the standards of adults and the consequences of following or breaking their rules.

Authority is outside the individual and reasoning is based on the physical consequences of actions.

Young Children’s moral reasoning They decide on an action solely on the basis of an

individual’s interest Rules are rules, never to be questioned Obey the rules to avoid punishment

Stage1: Obedience and Punishment Stage 2: Individualism and Exchange

Conventional (age 11 to adulthood)

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.

Teenage years Begin to acknowledge the needs of others Recognize that right and wrong must be consistent with

society’s norms which guide behaviours. Rules may be varied in certain circumstances but generally

should be obeyed to prevent breakdown of society

Stage 3: Good Interpersonal Relationships Stage 4: Maintaining Social Order

Post-conventional

Individual judgment is based on self-chosen principles, and moral reasoning is based on individual rights and justice (10–15% of adults, not before mid-30s).

Move beyond blind acceptance of society’s norms and wonder if they are ethically justified

Kohlberg believed that less than ten percent of society ever reach this stage

Stage 5: Social Contract and Individual Rights Stage 6: Universal Principles

In Class Task

Read through the handout Kohlberg’s Morality Theory

On your handout, summarize the information for each stage as connected to the Heinz Dilemma.

DO NOT write on the package reading Hand in the package back to me once

you have completed the work

THE MAIN POINT OF EACH STAGEDo not copy this information – just listen and understand

Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Reasoning

Stage1: Obedience and PunishmentThe child/individual is good in order to avoid being

punished. If a person is punished they must have donewrong.

The child tries to avoid being punished for breaking rules or disobeying instruction which have been established by an authority figure

E.g. “I had better stop talking because if I don’t I could be sent to the office again. If my parents find out, I’ll be in big trouble.”

Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Reasoning

Stage 2 – Individualism and ExchangeAt this stage children recognize that there is not just

one right view that is handed down by the authorities.

Different individuals have different viewpoints.

The child is inclined to act in order to achieve personal self-interest

e.g. “If I don’t stop talking I will be kept in after school, and I won’t be home in time to watch TV.”

Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Reasoning

Stage 3: Good Interpersonal Relationships – The child/individual is good in order to be seen as

being a good person by others. Therefore, answers are related to the approval of others.

Adolescence seek approval of persons they like by doing things to please them. They expect reciprocal treatment.

e.g. “I really like my teacher. She is nice to all of us. By not talking I can show her that I appreciate what she does.”

Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Reasoning

Stage 4: Maintaining Social Order – The child/individual becomes aware of the wider

rules of society so judgments concern obeying rules in order to uphold the law and to avoid guilt.

The adolescent realizes that the compliance with rules and regulations is necessary for the maintenance of social order.

“If we talked whenever we felt like it, there would be chaos in this classroom, and no one would learn anything.”

Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Reasoning

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.

Operate within a frame work which respects the dignity and rights of others, but can sometimes ignore rules that interfere with fairness or justice. e.g. “I know the rule is no talking, but I wanted to ask

Steve a question. We did not disturb anyone.”

Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Reasoning

Stage 6: Universal PrinciplesPeople 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.

Working toward the good of all in society. Need to protect individual rights and settle disputes through democratic processes. But Democratic process may not always be just. Examples?

Criticisms of Kohlberg

What do you think are criticisms of Kohlberg’s experiment and theory?

Criticisms of Kohlberg

Kohlberg’s subjects were aged between 7 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?

Kohlberg’s theory was based on an all-male sample, the stages reflect a male definition of morality. Mens' morality is based on abstract principles of law and justice, while womens' is based on principles of compassion and care.

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.

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.