Lawrence Kohlberg an American psychologist was born on October 25, 1927, and died on January 19, 1987, known for his theory on stages of moral development. He began his work on Moral Development as a psychology graduate student at the University of Chicago in 1958, he expanded the theory of Jean Piaget (1932). Piaget’s principal interest was not in what children do, whether they break rules or not but in what they think, this was based on two stages:
Stage of Autonomous Morality or Morality Cooperation – She believes children become less egocentric between the ages of 9-10. Children of this age realize that rules are not fixed but arbitrary. They realize that rules can change, and it is possible to make personal decisions about whether to obey the rules or not.
Moral Authority – Adulthood – at this stage it is not wrong to break the rules, rather the motives, rules, and specific situations are considered in making a judgment. It is hard for children at this stage to understand that the same behavior might evoke different responses from different people.
Kohlberg’s theory proposes that there is three level of moral development, each split into two making it six stages of moral development. Kohlberg agreed with Piaget’s theory but developed it further to fit his own ideas. He used storytelling techniques like Piaget to explain the moral dilemmas faced by children during their moral growth. One of the most important illustrations he used was the story of a man called Heinz who lived in Europe. Heinz’s wife had cancer and was dying, Doctors are of the opinion a new drug might cure and save Heinz’s wife. The drug was discovered by a local pharmacist, who charged an exorbitant amount that was not affordable by Heinz. He tried raising money with contributions from family members, but in the end, he couldn’t raise enough money to buy the drug, the local pharmacist believed he discovered the drug and should make a killer profit from sales. Heinz was desperate to save his wife who he loved so much, in his desperation, he broke into the pharmacist’s shop and stole the drug. The questions are:
Should Heinz have stolen the drug?
Would things have been different if Heinz did not love his wife
Would it have also been different if the person dying was not Heinz’s wife but a stranger
Would it be morally justified if the police arrested the chemist if Heinz’s wife died?
Kohlberg believed a study of answers to these questions by children of different ages will show how moral reasoning changes as people grow older.
Three distinct levels of moral reasoning were identified: pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional. Each of these levels is subdivided into two. People will go through these stages in the listed order. Sense of reasoning changes with each new stage replacing the older one. Kohlberg has not distinctively attached each moral level by differentiation to the age group which forms part of the criticism directed at his work by other psychologists of his time.
Preconventional Morality
At this stage, children do not have a personal code of morality, but their moral decisions are based on and shaped by rules set by adults. Children believe there are consequences for their actions.
Stage 1 – Obedience and Punishment Orientation
For instance, children who behave very well by adult’s standards (rules) will get a reward, such as “good job, well done, or it might be a hug, or kiss or as expressed by carers or parents. The reward is registered in the cognition of a child who understands being in good order will lead to reward, whereas children get punished when they are naughty, that is breaking or not obeying rules as set by the adult in form of a carer or parents. Punishment can be the child sitting in a naughty corner, toys being taken away, cookies or ice cream being kept away. A child knows this is not an acceptable norm and wants to keep away from being punished.
Stage 2 – Individualism and Exchange
At this stage, children have the understanding that there are multiple right views handed down by authorities. That is different individuals have different opinions. An example is when parents express different views when disciplining a child. Children tend to exploit this to their advantage by manipulating their parents. They are getting wiser and smarter at this stage.
Conventional Morality
At this level, children understand and accept social rules concerning rights and wrongs. Most adolescents and adults internalize moral values and standards as set by society. Authority is internalized but not questioned and reasoning is dictated and based on the norms of society (community, schools, groups, families at large) Society dictates rules by stressing on responsibilities of relationships and social orders. An interpersonal relationship develops at this stage.
Stage 3 – Good Interpersonal Relationships
The child/individual wants to keep to the societal norm by doing things as expected. Children seek acceptance. No one wants to be ostracised. The tendency is not to break rules.
Stage 4 – Maintaining the Social Order
At this stage, the child/individual is aware of societal wider rules. To uphold laws/orders, an individual strives to obey rules, regulations, and laws of society in form of government, school, workplace, etc., and not be found guilty.
Post Conventional Morality
At this level, an individual understands universal ethical principles. Society has grown from the local upbringing level to a larger scale. Some of these principles are abstract and probably ill-defined for instance the preservation of life at all costs (law against abortions) and the importance of human dignity. This can be a separatist level, intelligence comes to play, and it can be grouped as high, moderate, and low intelligent. An individual can pass judgment on self-chosen principles, he is free to express himself in the way he understands an issue without being condemned. (Freedom of speech). This is the peak of moral development of any individual but only a few people classified as highly intelligent get to this peak.
Stage 5 – Social Contract and Individual Rights
The child/individual is aware that while rules/laws exist for the good of the society to a large extent there are times when such will work against the interest of the minority. Using Heinz’s dilemma, the protection of life was more important than breaking the law. The intent was to save life as against breaking and stealing which is against law.
Stage 6 – Universal Principles
People at this stage have developed their own set of moral principles and guidelines. These may or may not fit the law. Good examples are human rights, justice, and equality. People are bold, and assertive to defend what they believe without fear of going against the rest of society. They are willing to face all consequences arising from their actions. Kohlberg believed few people can reach this stage. Not everyone is bold to be an activist.
Criticism of Kohlberg’s theory
Dilemmas of Heinz are artificial (validity not tested, it was based on an assumed situation) Under normal circumstances would it have been right for Heinz to steal the drugs just to save the life of his wife? Will it be legally right without any consequence?
Dilemmas (specified by Heinz’s story are hypothetical) in real-life situations, would it have been right to base judgment on an individual’s decision? The practical situation will call for different opinions and not just based on an individual. Besides, the law will take its cause on Heinz, and the chemist might not be liable for the death of the wife.
Subjects used by Kohlberg range between 10 and 16 years of age. This excludes moral development from ages 2 to 9, and adulthood was not represented. The subjects used were all children and adolescents who have never been in a relationship or married. They did not experience the dilemmas of adulthood.
The sample is further biased as the theory was based on all male samples. Men’s morality was based on abstract principles of law and justice while women’s was based on compassion and care.
Is moral development based on 3 distinct developments? In practical terms, moral reasoning about what is right or wrong depends on situations or instances and in most cases on general rules as dictated by society. This is even being questioned as society keeps evolving. Societal norms are being questioned, the supersonic development of technology is a fertile ground, awareness of different issues through social media has awakened the appetite of humans for things they would not have ventured into in the past, and gender classification is a good example. As of today, we have over 101 recognized genders as against the conventional two (male and female)
Does moral judgment match moral behaviors? Kohlberg did not claim a one-to-one match between thinking and acting, but his suggestions linked both. However, Bee (1994) suggests the following should be taken into consideration:
Habits that people have developed over time(still developing, the human race keeps evolving)
Individual’s reaction to a situation, does it require their attention or not
Moral values and benefits of behaving in a certain way
Social competing motives such as peer pressure, self-interest
Overall, Bee posits that moral behavior is impacted by social factors, and partly depends on individual reasoning based on different principles, values, and beliefs.
Is Justice a fundamental moral principle?
Gilligan (1977) has a different view, he suggests caring for others is equally important as justice. Kohlberg is gender biased believing that males(stage 4) are more advance in reasoning than females (stage 3). Gilligan responded to Kohlberg that “very traits that have traditionally defined the goodness of women, their care for and sensitivity to the needs of others, are those that mark them out as deficient in moral development”. Gilliagan claimed Kholberg is sex-biased, forgetting about the feminine voice of compassion, love, and non-violence, which is associated with female moral development. He concludes that women approach moral problems from ethics of care rather than ethics of justice. Scientifically in psychodynamics, the misinterpretation of male and female reasoning is simply tied to the high productivity of testosterone in males while estrogen hormone is dominant in females. The impact of these hormones has been misinterpreted by society, making males to be superior, wiser, and stronger gender than the female gender regarded as emotional, weak, and not intelligent.
This research was carried out by the July 2022 Batch of Child & Adolescent Class of The Institute of counseling in Nigeria.
