ETHICS

SUMMARY AND INSIGHTS REGARDING

STAGES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT
Of Lawrence Kohlberg

By: Daianna Guzman

BSA-2b
 STAGES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT

Stage 1
Pre-conventional
Stage 2
Stage 3
Conventional
Stage 4
Stage 5
Post-conventional
Stage 6

Pre-Conventional Level: Self Focused

- Moral reasoning is based on the consequences or
result of the act itself if it is good or bad, right or wrong.
They will act in order to avoid sanctions.

Stage 1: Punishment/Obedience
 The physical consequences of action determine
its goodness or badness regardless of the value
of these consequences. He is motivated by fear
of punishment.
Stage 2: Instrumental-Purposive (Mutual Benefit)
 Right action consists of that which
instrumentally satisfies one’s need and
occasionally the needs of others. “You scratch
my back and I’ll scratch yours.”
Conventional Level: Group Focused
 - Maintaining the expectations of the individual’s family,
group or nation is perceived as valuable as it its own
right, regardless of the immediate consequences.

Stage 3: Interpersonal Concordance

 Good behaviour is that which pleases or help
others and is approved by them. One is motivated
by what others expect in behaviour – good boy,
good girl.
Stage 4: Social Structure (Law-and-Order)
 There is orientation toward authority, fixed rules,
and maintenance of the social order. The person
will follow the law because it is the law.

Post-Conventional Level: Universal-Focused

- Moral reasoning is based on enduring or consistent
principles. It is not just recognizing the law, but the
principle behind the law.

Stage 5: Social Contract

 At this stage, people begin to account for the
differing values, opinions and beliefs of other
people. One will act based on social justice and
common good.
Stage 6: Universal Ethical
 This is associated with development of one’s
conscience. Having a set of standards that drives
one to possess moral responsibility to make
societal changes regardless of the conflict with
laws and rules. Conscience = personal integrity

Mr. Peterson’s Dilemma

Should:
Stage1:
If Mr. Peterson keeps the secret
and does not tell the school
officials, they might think the he
is on the planning of the boycott
and they could fire him because
of the misunderstanding. So, he
should tell.
Stage 2:
Mr. Peterson should notify the
school authorities. After all, this
will demonstrate to the
administration that he had
leadership potential and this
might help him get a promotion.
Stage 3:
He should notify the appropriate
people in the school. Mr.
Peterson may also be known by
the administration as a serious,
hardworking teacher who
demonstrates leadership; he
shouldn’t let these school officials
down in this situation.
Stage 4:
Mr. Peterson holds a position of
responsibility and therefore has
an obligation to maintain school
rules. He should inform the
appropriate people of the
planned boycott.
Should Not:
If Mr. Peterson keeps the secret
and does not tell the school
officials, his students will
continue to consider him as one
of the best teachers in school. So,
he should not tell.
Mr. Peterson should not notify
the school authorities because he
would not want someone to
break a confidence which he
entrusted to them.
Mr. Peterson would lose the
respect of his students if he told
the school officials about the
plan. He would not be able to
face them again if he let them
down by breaking their
confidence.
Mr. Peterson should not report
the incident. As a teacher, he has
a duty to protect the confidence
which students have placed in
him. Trust, confidence, and faith
are all part of the code which has
governed his relationship with his
students throughout the year.
This code is the greater value

Stage 5:
Mr. Peterson may want to keep
the boycott a secret and he may
disagree with the school rule, but
he has a responsibility to the
safety and welfare of the entire
school. He may realize injustice of
a rule which forbids protest and
he may agree with the farm
worker issue, but he should
attempt to change these rules. At
this time, however, he should
notify the school authorities in
the interest of safety.
Stage 6:
Mr. Peterson recognizes a
potentially volatile situation that
threatens the lives of others. He
believes that he should attempt
to intervene. The sanctity of
human life is more important
than breaking a confidence or
merely upholding the school rule.
However, he should tell to the
school officials the planned
boycott.
than the arbitrary rules of the
school.
Mr. Peterson’s obligation to
inform the administration is less
important than the student’s
right to demonstrate against
what they believe to be an
injustice and their willingness to
pay the penalties for their action.
No evidence exists which
establishes a “clear and present
danger” to other students;
therefore, the students have
right to protest regardless of the
school rule and Mr. Peterson
should not interfere.
Mr. Peterson is also aware that
part of the student body is not
sympathetic to the boycott and
could result in a physical
confrontation. However, he
should consider the greater
injustice actually endured by the
farm workers as compared to the
possible inconvenience of a
group of unsympathetic students.
The school rule should not stand
in the way of a protest against
the in dignity of the farm workers
lives. He should not inform the
school officials of the planned
boycott.