Kohlberg’s Stages Of Moral Development
Lawrence Kohlberg built on the work of cognitive theorist Jean Piaget to explain how children develop morally. Moral development, like cognitive development, Kohlberg believed, follows a series of stages.
• To teach 10 to 16 year-old boys about morality and values, he used the concept of moral dilemmas—stories that present conflicting ideas about two moral values.
• The "Heinz" dilemma, which considers the idea of obeying the law versus saving a life, is Kohlberg's most well-known moral dilemma. Kohlberg emphasized that positive moral development is determined by an individual's reasoning about a dilemma.
• Kohlberg analyzed people's responses and classified them into different stages of moral reasoning after presenting them with various moral dilemmas.
• According to Kohlberg, people progress from pre-conventional morality (before age 9) to conventional morality (early adolescence) and then to post-conventional morality (once Piaget's idea of formal operational thought is achieved), which only a few people fully achieve. Each level of morality has two stages that serve as the foundation for moral development in various situations.
• Pre conventional, conventional, and post conventional moral development were defined by Kohlberg.
• There are two distinct stages in each level. Each level corresponds to progressively more complex stages of moral development.
1. LEVEL 1: PRECONVENTIONAL
• A child's sense of morality is externally controlled throughout the pre conventional level.
• The rules of authority figures such as parents and teachers are accepted and believed by children.
• A child with pre-conventional morality has not yet adopted or internalised society's conventions about what is right and wrong, focusing instead on the external consequences of specific actions.
A. Stage 1: Orientation to Obedience and Punishment
• The first stage focuses on the child's desire to follow rules and avoid punishment.
• For example, a morally wrong act is perceived as such because the perpetrator is punished; the harsher the punishment, the more "bad" the act is perceived to be.
B. Stage 2: Instrumental Orientation
• It reflects the "what's in it for me?" mindset, in which right behaviour is defined by what the individual believes is in their best interests.
• Stage two reasoning demonstrates a limited interest in other people's needs, only to the extent that they may benefit the individual's own interests.
• As a result, concern for others is based on a "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" mentality rather than loyalty or intrinsic respect. When a child is asked to do a chore by his parents, this is an example (routine task). The child inquires, "What's in it for me?" and his parents respond by giving him an allowance.
2. Level 2: Conventional
• A child's sense of morality is linked to personal and societal relationships at the traditional level.
• Children continue to accept authority figures' rules, but only because they believe it is necessary to maintain positive relationships and societal order.
• During these stages, adherence to rules and conventions is somewhat rigid, and the appropriateness or fairness of a rule is rarely questioned.
C. Stage 3: Good Boy, Nice Girl Orientation
• Children in stage 3 seek other people's approval and act in ways to avoid disapproval.
• The importance of good behavior and being "nice" to others is emphasized.
D. Stage 4: Law-and-Order Orientation
• In stage 4, the child accepts rules and conventions without question because they are necessary for a functioning society.
• Everyone is expected to follow the same set of rules, and doing what one is "supposed" to do is regarded as valuable and important.
• In stage four, moral reasoning takes precedence over the need for individual approval that was evident in stage three.
• If one person breaks a law, it is likely that everyone else will as well, so upholding laws and rules is a responsibility. The majority of society's active members are still in stage four, where morality is still largely dictated by an outside force.
3. LEVEL 3: POSTCONVENTIONAL
• A person's sense of morality is defined in terms of more abstract principles and values at the post conventional level. Some laws are now thought to be unjust and should be changed or repealed.
• Individuals are increasingly aware that they are separate entities from society, and that they are free to disobey rules that contradict their own values.
• Post-conventional moralists live by their own ethical principles—principles that typically include such fundamental human rights as life, liberty, and justice—and see rules as useful but changeable mechanisms rather than absolute commands that must be followed without question. Because post-conventional people value their moral judgement of a situation more than social conventions, their behavior, particularly at stage six, can be confused with that of pre-conventional people.
• Many people, according to some theorists, will never reach this level of abstract moral reasoning.
E. Stage 5: Social-Contract Orientation
• The world is seen as having different opinions, rights, and values in stage 5. Such viewpoints should be respected as unique to each individual or community.
• Rather than being rigid edicts, laws are viewed as social contracts. Those who do not promote the general welfare should be replaced as needed to achieve the greatest good for the largest number of people.
• This is accomplished through a majority vote and the inevitable compromise that follows. Theoretically, democratic government is based on stage five reasoning.
F. Stage 6: Universal-Ethical-Principal Orientation
• Moral reasoning in stage 6 is based on abstract reasoning based on universal ethical principles.
• In general, the principles chosen are abstract rather than concrete, focusing on concepts like equality, dignity, and respect.
• Laws are only valid insofar as they are based on justice, and a commitment to justice entails disobedience of unjust laws.
• People choose the ethical principles they want to follow, and they feel guilty if they break them. In this case, the person acts because it is morally right (rather than to avoid punishment), it is in their best interests, it is expected, it is legal, or it was previously agreed upon. Despite Kohlberg's insistence that stage six exists, he said it was difficult to find people who consistently operated at that level.
CRITIQUES OF KOHLBERG’S THEORY
1. Kohlberg has been chastised for claiming that women's moral reasoning abilities are inferior to men's. Kohlberg's theory was criticized by Carol Gilligan (1982), a former research assistant, because it was based so narrowly on research involving white, upper-class men and boys. She argued that women are not morally deficient, but that males and females reason in different ways: girls and women are more concerned with staying connected and maintaining interpersonal relationships.
2. Kohlberg's theory has been criticized for emphasizing justice to the exclusion of other values, potentially leaving those who value other moral aspects of actions unsatisfied.
3. Similarly, critics argue that Kohlberg's stages are culturally biased, with the highest stages reflecting a westernized ideal of justice based on individualistic thought. This is biased against people who live in non-Western societies where individualism is valued less.
4. Another criticism of Kohlberg's theory is that people's moral judgments frequently show significant inconsistency. This is common in moral dilemmas involving drinking and driving or in business situations where participants have been shown to reason at a lower developmental stage, using more self-interest driven reasoning (i.e., stage two) than authority and social order obedience driven reasoning (i.e., stage four). According to critics, Kohlberg's theory is unable to account for such inconsistencies.