Lawrence Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development constitute an adaptation of a psychological
theory originally conceived of by Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget. Kohlberg, while
a Psychology postgraduate student at the University of Chicago, expanded and then
developed Piaget’s concepts throughout the course of his life.
The theory holds that moral reasoning, the basis for ethical behaviour, has 6 identifiable
developmental stages, each more adequate at responding to moral dilemmas than its
predecessor. Kohlberg followed the development of moral judgment far beyond the ages
studied earlier by Piaget (1932) who also claimed that logic and morality develop
through constructive stages. Expanding on Piaget's work, Kohlberg (1963) determined
that the process of moral development was principally concerned with justice and
that it continued throughout the individual's lifetime - a notion that spawned dialogue
on the philosophical implications of such research.
Kohlberg’s methodology used the Moral Judgement Interview he had first developed
for his 1958 dissertation with 72 boys aged between 10 and 16, both working class
and middle class in Chicago. During the roughly 2-hour tape recorded semi-structured
interview, the interviewer uses 10 moral dilemmas to determine which stage of moral
reasoning a person uses. The 10 universal moral issues or values Kohlberg used are
property, law, roles and concerns of affection, roles and concerns of authority,
life, liberty, distributive justice, truth and sex. The dilemmas are fictional short
stories that describe situations in which a person has to make a moral decision,
choosing between 2 (or more) moral principles. The participant is asked a systemic
series of open-ended questions, like what they think the right course of action is,
as well as justifications as to why certain actions are right or wrong. The form
and structure of these replies are scored and not the content; over a set of multiple
moral dilemmas an overall score is derived. Probably the most famous of Kohlberg’s
stories was the ‘Heinz Dilemma’...
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 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?
Kohlberg was interested in how individuals would justify their actions if placed
in such moral dilemmas. He analysed the form of moral reasoning displayed, rather
than its conclusion and classified it as belonging to one of 6 distinct stages generally
grouped into 3 levels of 2 stages each: Pre-Conventional, Conventional and Post-Conventional.
An individual‘s reasoning on each dilemma might be at a different level but overall
their reasoning tended to be at one discrete level. Kohlberg stated that stages cannot
be skipped; each provides a new and necessary perspective, more comprehensive and
differentiated than its predecessors but integrated with them. It represents a more
equilibriated form of moral reasoning, resulting in more logically consistent reasoning.
Moral maturity is achieved through biological maturation, disequilibrium (noticing
weaknesses in current thinking) and gains in perspective taking (understanding another’s
viewpoint). Due to these factors, Kohlberg thought it extremely rare to regress backward
in stages - to lose the use of higher stage abilities.
Pre-Conventional
The Pre-Conventional level of moral reasoning is especially common in children, although
adults can also exhibit this level of reasoning. Reasoners at this level judge the
morality of an action by its direct consequences. The Pre-Conventional level consists
of the first and second stages of moral development, and is solely concerned with
the self in an egocentric manner.
In Stage 1 (obedience and punishment driven), individuals focus on the direct consequences
of their actions on themselves. For example, an action is perceived as morally wrong
because the perpetrator is punished. "The last time I did that I got spanked so I
will not do it again." The worse the punishment for the act is, the more ‘bad’ the
act is perceived to be. This can give rise to an inference that even innocent victims
are guilty in proportion to their suffering. This view is egocentric, lacking recognition
that others' points of view are different from one's own. There is a deference to
superior power or prestige. Obedience is not valued for its own sake.
Stage 2 (self-interest/reward driven) espouses the "what's in it for me" position,
in which right behaviour is defined by whatever is in the individual's best interest
- ie: what will bring reward. Stage two reasoning shows a limited interest in the
needs of others, but only to a point where it might further the individual's own
interests. As a result, concern for others is not based on loyalty or intrinsic respect,
but rather a "you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours" mentality. The lack of
a societal perspective in the Pre-conventional level is quite different from the
‘social contract’ (Stage 5), as all actions have the purpose of serving the individual's
own needs or interests. For the Stage 2 theorist, the world's perspective is often
seen as morally relative.
Conventional
The Conventional level of moral reasoning is typical of adolescents and adults. Those
who reason in a Conventional way judge the morality of actions by comparing them
to society's views and expectations. The views of others are now considered. The
Conventional level consists of the third and fourth stages of moral development.
In Stage 3 (interpersonal accord and conformity driven), the self enters society
by filling social roles. Individuals are receptive to approval or disapproval from
others as it reflects society's accordance with the perceived role. They try to be
a ‘good boy’ or ‘good girl’ to live up to these expectations, having learned that
there is inherent value in doing so. Stage 3 reasoning may judge the morality of
an action by evaluating its consequences in terms of a person's relationships, which
now begin to include things like respect, gratitude and the ‘golden rule’ (reciprocity
of just treatment). "I want to be liked and thought well of; apparently, not being
naughty makes people like me." Desire to maintain rules and authority exists only
to further support these social roles. The intentions of actions play a more significant
role in reasoning at this stage; "they mean well ...".
In Stage 4 (authority and social order obedience driven), it is important to obey
laws, dictums and social conventions because of their importance in maintaining a
functioning society. Moral reasoning in Stage 4 is thus beyond the need for individual
approval exhibited in Stage 3; society must learn to transcend individual needs.
A central ideal or ideals often prescribe what is right and wrong, such as in the
case of fundamentalism. If one person violates a law, perhaps everyone would - thus,
there is an obligation and a duty to uphold laws and rules. When someone does violate
a law, it is morally wrong; culpability is thus a significant factor in this stage
as it separates the bad domains from the good ones. Most active members of modern
Western society don’t usually get past Stage 4 where morality is still predominantly
dictated by an outside force.
Post-Conventional
The Post-Conventional level, also known as the ‘principled level’, consists of Stages
5 and 6 of moral development. There is a growing realisation that individuals are
separate entities from society and that the individual's own perspective may take
precedence over society's view. Because of this level's "nature of self before others",
the behaviour of Post-Conventional individuals, especially those at Stage 6, can
be confused with that of those at the Pre-Conventional level.
In Stage 5 (social contract driven), individuals are viewed as holding different
opinions and values. Similarly, laws are regarded as ‘social contracts’ rather than
rigid dictums. Those which do not promote the general welfare should be changed when
necessary to meet "the greatest good for the greatest number of people". This is
achieved through majority decision, and inevitable compromise. Thus, democratic government
is ostensibly based on Stage 5 reasoning.
In Stage 6 (universal ethical principles driven), moral reasoning is based on abstract
reasoning using universal ethical principles. Laws are valid only insofar as they
are grounded in justice, and a commitment to justice carries with it an obligation
to disobey unjust laws. Rights are unnecessary, as social contracts are not essential
for deontic moral action. Decisions are not reached hypothetically in a conditional
way but rather categorically in an absolute way, as in the philosophy of Immanuel
Kant. This involves an individual imagining what they would do in another's shoes,
if they believed what that other person imagines to be true. The resulting consensus
is the action taken. In this way action is never a means but always an end in itself;
the individual acts because it is right, and not because it is instrumental, expected,
legal, or previously agreed upon. Although Kohlberg insisted that Stage 6 exists,
he found it difficult to identify a sufficient mass of individuals who consistently
operated at that level for him to claim statistical significance in all his studies.
Changes over Time
In 1983 Anne Colby, Kohlberg, John Gibbs & Marcus Lieberman reported on the original
1963 group of 72 boys, having tested them 6 times at 3-yearly intervals in those
20 years. The results are graphed below.
At age 10 the boys displayed mainly Stage 2 but there were examples of Stages 1 and
3. By the age of 22 no one used Stage 1 reasoning and Stages 3 and 4 were predominant.
By the age of 36 and the end of the study, there was only marginal evidence of Stage
5 reasoning (around 5%).
In 1976 James P Shaver & William Strong raised the question of whether most people
develop beyond Stage 4.
If, as in Integrated SocioPsychology, Kohlberg’s stages are seen as the outputs of
vMEMES processing moral issues - see Comparison Map - then it would be expected that
there would be a developmental hierarchy in the emergence of moral reasoning as people
grow older and wiser in more complex circumstances (Life Conditions). If the Life
Conditions do not require it, it is unlikely that more complex ways of reasoning
would emerge.
