THEORY OF MORAL

DEVELOPMENTLawrence Kohlberg

SOME BACKGROUND Kohlberg worked on these concepts while

a postgraduate student at University of Chicago in 1958.

Expanded Jean Piaget’s work on moral development.

Research centered on children3 stages, 6 levels

Critics blame his system as focusing too much on concept of justice to the exclusion of other interpersonal emotions.Also, does moral reasoning lead to moral

behavior?

LEVEL 1:

Pre-Conventional Morality

STAGE 1: OBEDIENCE AND PUNISHMENT Children and adults capable of this level

of reasoning. Rules are fixed and absolute Obey because disobeying brings

disapproval and punishment Focus on self: egocentrism Deference to superior authority Worse the punishment, worse the act “I’m not doing that because the last

time I did that, I was grounded for a month.”

STAGE 2: INDIVIDUALISM & EXCHANGE Still individual focused: egocentric Consider other points of view, but in

relation to how they serve the individual (self).

Reciprocity possible, but only if also self-serving.“I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine.”

Moral relativism Some acknowledgment of intrinsic

respect or loyalty, but secondary to personal gain“What’s in it for me?”

Boy, age 6-7?“maybe they had children and he might need someone at home to look after them. But maybe he shouldn't steal it because they might put him in prison for more years than he could stand.” (Colby and Kauffman. 1983, p. 300)

LEVEL 2

Conventional

STAGE 3:INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS “Good boy/good girl” orientation Individual must live up to social

expectations, play the proper social role Emphasis on conformity Personal choice influences relationships Approval and disapproval reflects

society’s acceptance of the individual behavior

Respect and gratitude are important “Golden Rule”

Boy, age 13“It was really the druggist's fault, he was unfair, trying to overcharge and letting someone die. Heinz loved his wife and wanted to save her. I think anyone would. I don't think they would put him in jail. The judge would look at all sides, and see that the druggist was charging too much.” (Kohlberg, 1963, p. 25)

STAGE 4:MAINTAINING SOCIAL ORDER Individual considers society as a whole Live outside the self Focus on doing one’s duty to preserve

order Preserve law and order Do what is right because it is right Beyond the need for social approval

(Stage3) Morality dictated by outside force If one person misbehaves, then

everyone will. Therefore…

I don't want to sound like Spiro Agnew, law and order and wave the flag, but if everybody did as he wanted to do, set up his own beliefs as to right and wrong, then I think you would have chaos. The only thing I think we have in civilization nowadays is some sort of legal structure which people are sort of bound to follow. [Society needs] a centralizing framework. (Gibbs et al., 1983, pp. 140-41)

LEVEL 3

Post-Conventional

STAGE 5:SOCIAL CONTRACT & INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS

Consider different values, opinions, and beliefs of other people

Rules of law important, but people should agree (consensus driven? Majority? Plurality?)

Democratic thinking / compromise / legal rights

Different cultures/beliefs respected and valued.

Laws = social contracts, not rigid edicts Utilitarianism

“It is the husband's duty to save his wife. The fact that her life is in danger transcends every other standard you might use to judge his action. Life is more important than property.”

“Usually the moral and legal standpoints coincide. Here they conflict. The judge should weight the moral standpoint more heavily but preserve the legal law in punishing Heinz lightly.” (Kohlberg, 1976, p. 38)

STAGE 6: UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES Universal ethical principles (Jung?) Internalized moral code based on justice Can weigh internal code against society,

and reconcile, even if it conflicts Justice is personal concept AND

universal concept Duty to disobey an unjust law (legal

rights unnecessary, social K unneeded) Categorical imperative (no hypos) Action not a means, but an end Very difficult to apply consistently

HEINZ DILEMMA 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).

SO HOW SHOULD WE REACT? Stage 1: Don’t steal the medicine. You will

be punished. This will make you a bad person.

Stage 2: Steal the medicine b/c he will be so much happier if he saves his wife—even if he goes to jail. Or, don’t steal the medicine, b/c jail will be really hard on him and better to be with his wife than in jail.

Stage 3: Heinz should steal the medicine because he wants to be a good husband in his wife’s eyes. Or don’t steal the medicine b/c he doesn’t want the people who know him to think he is a criminal.

CONT. Stage 4: Heinz should not steal the medicine.

This is against the law, and breaking the law is wrong.

Stage 5: Every human has a right to life—fundamentally. It shouldn’t matter if it’s against the law to steal the medicine. Preserving life is more important. Or, don’t steal the medicine b/c this deprives the company who made it from fair compensation.

Stage 6: Steal the medicine b/c value of life is morally more important than a property right. Or don’t steal the medicine b/c there are others who might need it and can pay for it, and consequently, they are more deserving of it.

OTHER THEORIES Jonathan Haidt: Social Intuitionism

Morals are more intuitive than cognitively reasoned.

Reasoning is a post hoc argument Carol Gilligan

Boys and girls form different moralities Girls: more compassion, caring Boys: more legalistic, societal-oriented “Adolescence is a period in which, although much of

your moral thinking is developed, you may not choose to follow the voice in your head solely due to the decisions being made around you by your peers. Studies have shown that although teenagers have a set of standards, they may cross these in order to fit into the crowd.”

INFORMATION TAKEN FROM:

http://www.netplaces.com/psychology/human-development-adolescence/cognitive-development-how-adolescents-think.htm

http://www3.nd.edu/~wcarbona/Haidt%202001.pdf

http://psychology.about.com/od/developmentalpsychology/a/kohlberg.htm

http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/kohlberg.htm

W.C. Crain. (1985). Theories of Development. Prentice-Hall. pp. 118-136.

Haidt, Jonathan. The Righteous Mind. Pantheon: 2012.