LAWRENCE KOHLBERG’S MORAL DEVELOPMENT THEORY

 Kohlberg built his moral development views on Jean Piaget’s work. Like Piaget, Kohlberg believed that moral reasoning is a process that is closely linked to cognitive development. Kohlberg also used the same methodology as Piaget in the study of moral development where he presented his research subjects with stories which had some moral dilemmas. The dilemmas were about the appropriate course of action which was to be taken by the characters in the stories, to be able to uphold morality. The main difference between Kohlberg's and Piaget’s work is that while Piaget’s work on moral development ended in childhood Kohlberg’s work extended from childhood right through to adolescence and adulthood.

The Heinz’s story is one of the stories with some moral dilemmas Kohlberg presented to 72 boys aged 10, 13 and 16 years in Chicago, USA. A woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. The drug that the doctors thought might save her was expensive to make and the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to make.  Heinz, the husband to the sick woman after much struggle managed to raise about half the total cost of the drug. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to get the drug on credit, but the druggist resisted. Because Heinz was desperate he broke into the drug store and stole the drug.

At the end of the story Kohlberg would ask the following question: Was Heinz right or wrong to steal the drug? Indicate why you think he was right or wrong? Kohlberg in these dilemmas was not really interested in whether the subject says "yes" or "no" to this but in the reasoning behind the answer. Kohlberg, through studying stories with moral dilemmas and their various explanations by the subjects he was able to determine what level of moral development the subjects were. This led to the development of a model to explain the process of moral development. The model identified three levels of moral reasoning, each comprising two stages of moral development.

LEVEL 1. PRE-CONVENTIONAL MORAL REASONING

Reasoning at this level is according to the self-perspective and is especially common in children, although adults can also exhibit this level of reasoning. The morality of an action at this level is judged by its direct consequences. This level is solely concerned with the self in an egocentric manner.  A child with pre-conventional morality has not yet adopted or internalised society's conventions regarding what is right or wrong, but instead focuses largely on external consequences that certain actions may bring.

Stage 1. Obedience and Punishment Driven

In this stage the child assumes that powerful authorities hand down a fixed set of rules which he or she must unquestioningly obey. To the Heinz dilemma, the child says that Heinz was wrong to steal the drug because "It's against the law," or "It's bad to steal. Individuals focus on the direct consequences of their actions on themselves. Kohlberg refers to stage 1 thinking as "preconventional" because children do not yet speak as members of society. Instead, they see morality as something external to themselves, as that which the big people say they must do.

Stage 2-Self-interest orientation (Individualism and Exchange)

Here the child will follow rules if there is a known benefit to him or her.  Children in this stage are very concerned with what is fair. They conform to social expectations in the hope of gaining rewards. Children make deals with each other and even adults. They agree to behave in a certain way because they know they will be rewarded. For example I will spread the bed if you allow me to watch the movie. The reward Sometimes, is in the knowledge that behaving correctly is in the child's own best interest. 

That is, they receive approval from authority figures or admiration from peers, avoid blame, or behave in accordance with their concept of self. In the Heinz’s story Heinz should steal the medicine because he will be much happier if he saves his wife, even if he will have to serve a prison sentence. Or: Heinz should not steal the medicine because prison is an awful place, and he would probably experience anguish over a jail cell more than his wife's death.

LEVEL 2: CONVENTIONAL MORAL REASONING

 Here reasoning is based on social rules and norms. Individuals tend to be self-identified with these rules, and uphold them consistently; viewing morality as acting in accordance with what society defines as right. The conventional level of moral reasoning is typical of adolescents and adults. Individuals in this level judge the morality of actions by comparing them to society's views and expectations. Conventional morality is characterised by an acceptance of society's conventions concerning right and wrong. At this level an individual obeys rules and follows society's norms even when there are no consequences for obedience or disobedience. Sticking to rules and conventions is rigid, and a rule's correctness or fairness is rarely questioned. Stage 3 and 4, fall under this level.

Stage 3- Interpersonal Concordance Orientation (Interpersonal Relationships) 

This is often referred to as the "good boy-good girl" orientation.  The reasoning here works best in two-person relationships with family members or close friends. This stage of moral development is focused on living up to social expectations and roles. There is an emphasis on conformity, being "nice," and consideration of how choices influence relationships.  In Heinz’s story, Heinz should steal the medicine because his wife expects it; he wants to be a good husband. Similarly, a boy whose sister has been beaten might fight back as a way of pleasing the younger sister. The next is stage 4.

Stage 4- Authority and social-order maintaining orientation

Subjects at this stage make moral decisions from the perspective of society as a whole. The emphasis is on obeying laws, respecting authority, and performing one's duties so that the social order is maintained. In response to the Heinz story, many subjects say they understand that Heinz's motives were good, but they cannot condone the theft.  

If people for example started breaking the laws whenever they felt they had a good reason what would happen? Heinz should not steal the medicine because the law prohibits stealing, making it illegal. Or: Heinz should steal the drug for his wife but also take the prescribed punishment for the crime. In the same vain one might say that it is against the law to fight even when the one who is fighting is trying to save a soul. This end of level 2 lets now consider level 3 of moral development.

LEVEL 3- POST-CONVENTIONAL MORAL REASONING

Individuals here use the principle behind the social norm to direct their behaviour. This level is also known as the principled level, marked by a growing realisation that individuals are separate entities from society, and that the individual’s own perspective may take precedence over society’s view; individuals may disobey rules inconsistent with their own principles.  Moralists at this level live by their own ethical principles that may include basic human rights as life, liberty, and justice. 

People view rules as useful but changeable. Rules are not absolute dictates that must be obeyed without question. Because post-conventional individuals elevate their own moral evaluation of a situation over social conventions, their behaviour, especially at stage six, can be confused with that of those at the pre-conventional level. Some theorists have speculated that many people may never reach this level of abstract moral reasoning. Stage 5 and 6 are found under this level.

Stage 5-Social contract orientation

Laws are regarded as social contracts rather than rigid edicts. Those laws that 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 a majority decision. Over and above democratic government is based on stage five reasoning. At this stage, people begin to account for the differing values, opinions and beliefs of other people. 

Rules of law are important for maintaining a society, but members of the society should agree upon these standards. Moral behaviour and moral decisions are based on the greatest good for the greatest number. In Heinz’s story, he should steal the medicine because everyone has a right to choose life, regardless of the law. Or: Heinz should not steal the medicine because the scientist has a right to compensation. Even if his wife is sick, it does not make his actions right. The last stage is stage 6.

Stage 6- Universal ethical principles

Here, individuals examine the validity of society's laws and govern themselves by what they consider to be universal moral principles, usually involving equal rights and respect. Adults here are motivated by individual conscience that goes beyond cultural, religious, or social convention rules. At this stage, people follow these internalised principles of justice, even if they conflict with laws and rules. Heinz should steal the medicine, because saving a human life is a more fundamental value than the property rights of another person. Or: Heinz should not steal the medicine, because others may need the medicine just as badly, and their lives are equally significant.