Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development
Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development
Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development
Psychologist
Lawrence Kohlberg modified and expanded upon Jean Piaget's work to form a theory that
explained the development of moral reasoning. Piaget described a two-stage process of
moral development, while Kohlberg theory of moral development outlined six stages within
three different levels. Kohlberg extended Piaget’s theory, proposing that moral development
is a continual process that occurs throughout the lifespan.
Kohlberg based his theory upon research and interviews with groups of young children. A
series of moral dilemmas were presented to children, who were then interviewed to
determine the reasoning behind their judgments of each scenario. The following is one
example of the dilemmas Kohlberg presented.
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)."
Kohlberg was not interested so much in the answer to the question of whether Heinz was
wrong or right, but in the reasoning for each participant's decision. The responses were then
classified into various stages of reasoning in his theory of moral development.
Does moral reasoning necessarily lead to moral behavior? Kohlberg's theory is concerned
with moral thinking, but there is a big difference between knowing what weought to do
versus our actual actions.
Is justice the only aspect of moral reasoning we should consider? Critics have pointed out
that Kohlberg's theory of moral development overemphasizes the concept as justice when
making moral choices. Factors such as compassion, caring and other interpersonal
feelings may play an important part in moral reasoning.
His theory of moral development was dependent on the thinking of the Swiss
psychologist Jean Piaget and the American philosopher John Dewey. He was also
inspired by James Mark Baldwin. These men had emphasized that human beings
develop philosophically and psychologically in a progressive fashion.
2 Individualism, Instrumentalism,
and Exchange
6 Principled Conscience
The first level of moral thinking is that generally found at the elementary school
level. In the first stage of this level, people behave according to socially
acceptable norms because they are told to do so by some authority figure (e.g.,
parent or teacher). This obedience is compelled by the threat or application of
punishment. The second stage of this level is characterized by a view that right
behavior means acting in one's own best interests.
The second level of moral thinking is that generally found in society, hence the
name "conventional." The first stage of this level (stage 3) is characterized by an
attitude which seeks to do what will gain the approval of others. The second stage
is one oriented to abiding by the law and responding to the obligations of duty.
The third level of moral thinking is one that Kohlberg felt is not reached by the
majority of adults. Its first stage (stage 5) is an understanding of social mutuality
and a genuine interest in the welfare of others. The last stage (stage 6) is based
on respect for universal principle and the demands of individual conscience. While
Kohlberg always believed in the existence of Stage 6 and had some nominees for
it, he could never get enough subjects to define it, much less observe their
longitudinal movement to it.
Kohlberg believed that individuals could only progress through these stages one
stage at a time. That is, they could not "jump" stages. They could not, for
example, move from an orientation of selfishness to the law and order stage
without passing through the good boy/girl stage. They could only come to a
comprehension of a moral rationale one stage above their own. Thus, according to
Kohlberg, it was important to present them with moral dilemmas for discussion
which would help them to see the reasonableness of a "higher stage" morality and
encourage their development in that direction. The last comment refers to
Kohlberg's moral discussion approach. He saw this as one of the ways in which
moral development can be promoted through formal education. Note that Kohlberg
believed, as did Piaget, that most moral development occurs through social
interaction. The discussion approach is based on the insight that individuals
develop as a result of cognitive conflicts at their current stage.
1. Scenario 1
A woman was near death from a unique kind of cancer. There is a drug that might
save her. The drug costs $4,000 per dosage. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went
to everyone he knew to borrow the money and tried every legal means, but he could
only get together about $2,000. He asked the doctor scientist who discovered the
drug for a discount or let him pay later. But the doctor scientist refused.
Should Heinz break into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why
not?
2. Scenario 2
Heinz broke into the laboratory and stole the drug. The next day, the newspapers
reported the break-in and theft. Brown, a police officer and a friend of Heinz
remembered seeing Heinz last evening, behaving suspiciously near the laboratory.
Later that night, he saw Heinz running away from the laboratory.
3. Scenario 3
Officer Brown reported what he saw. Heinz was arrested and brought to court. If
convicted, he faces up to two years' jail. Heinz was found guilty.
But according to stage theory, people cannot understand moral reasoning more than one
stage ahead of their own. For example, a person in Stage 1 can understand Stage 2
reasoning but nothing beyond that. Therefore, we should present moral arguments that are
only one stage ahead of a person's present level of reasoning to stimulate movement to
higher stages.
This article (in 4 parts) is an attempt to use illustrations to help explain the six stages and
to show how cognitive dissonance can be created by throwing up the inadequacies of the
different stages of reasoning.