Stage 1 and Stage 2 reasons for behaving morally are to avoid punishment and

achieve rewards. Since moral behavior at these stages is externally determined

they do not form a basis for cooperative living.
Stage 1 and 2 measures correlated with the intent to invest in the self but not
others
Stage 3 morality involves the reasoning that people are obligated to care for
their family and friends; this would appear to be the morality of hunter and
gatherer societies.
the Stage 3 measure correlated with the intent to invest in the participant’s
children, mate, parents, siblings, and friends (a hunter-gatherer social
organization);
Stage 4 morality involves the reasoning that people must obey authority in the
form of traditional norms, written laws, and the legal system; this would
appear to be the morality of nation states.
; the Stage 4 measure correlated with investment in all of the above targets
except self and non-American strangers (a nationalistic social organization);
Stage 5 morality involves the reasoning that people should obey
democratically created rules which presumably create the greatest good for the
greatest number and
the Stage 5 measure correlated with investment in children, mate, parents,
and American strangers (a nationalistic social organization), and
Stage 6 morality involves the reasoning that people should follow universal
ethical principles like justice. These moralities would appear to be the morality
of international social organizations.  B
the Stage 6 measure correlated with investment in all of the targets except self
(a global social organization).
 Lawrence Kohlberg's theory claims that our development of moral reasoning
happens in six stages.
The stages themselves are structured in three levels: pre-conventional, conventional,
and post-conventional

Example:
To understand this better, imagine a conflict at school. There is a fight in the
schoolyard, two ninth-graders are beating up Tom. Those who watch the fight are
at different stages of moral development. Let's see what they do and how they
justify their behavior
 At stage one, we make moral judgments based on obedience and
punishment. Finn's sense of good or bad is directly linked to whether
he gets punished or not. Finn sees what is happening to his friend and
wants to help, but he doesn't because he is afraid the teacher may
punish him if he gets caught fighting. He asks himself, how can I avoid
punishment?

 At stage two, we are motivated by self-interest. Mary decides to

intervene and help Tom. She knows that she might get punished, but
she also knows that she could become a victim herself someday. If she
helps Tom now, he might help her in the future. She is asking herself:
What's in it for me?

 At stage three, interpersonal accord and conformity guide our moral

judgment. Betty sees the fight and wants to intervene. But when she
realizes that all the others are just watching, she decides not to get
involved. She wants others to see that she is a good girl who is
conforming with the ethics of the community. She asks herself: What
do others think of me?

 At stage four, we value authority and want to maintain social order.

When the teacher sees the group fighting he immediately steps in and
shouts: Stop! Fighting at school is forbidden! He feels that, above all, it
is important to follow the rules, otherwise chaos breaks out. He feels it
is his duty to uphold the rules that sustain a functioning society. He
asks himself: How can I maintain law and order?

 At stage five, we understand rules as a social contract as opposed to a

strict order. Jessie who watches from afar is not sure how she feels
about this. To her, rules make sense only if they serve the right
purpose. Obviously, the school rules prohibit fighting. But maybe Tom
deserves to finally learn his lesson. Just yesterday he punched a
young girl from grade one. She asks herself: Does a rule truly serve all
members of the community?
  At stage six, we are guided by universal ethical principles. All those
involved now have to face the headmaster. He first explains the school
rules and why they exist. He then clarifies that rules are valid only if
they are grounded in justice. The commitment to justice carries with it
an obligation to disobey unjust rules. The headmaster's highest moral
principle is compassion. He believes that all people should learn to
understand each other's viewpoints and that they don't feel alone with
their feelings. He asks: What are the abstract ethical principles that
serve my understandings of justice?

At the pre-conventional level, Finn is driven by fear and Mary by self-interest.

Both judge what is right or wrong by the direct consequences they expect for
themselves, and not by social norms. This form of reasoning is common among children

At the conventional level, Betty responds to peer pressure and the teacher
follows the rules. Their morality is centered around what society regards as right, this
level, the fairness of rules is seldom questioned, it is common to think like this during
adolescence and adulthood

At the post-conventional level, Jesse knows that things are complicated because
individuals may disobey rules inconsistent with their own morality. The headmaster
follows a universal ethical idea at complete disconnect with what society thinks or the
rules say. To him, everything is solved through compassion. The right behavior in his
opinion is therefore never a means to an end, but always an end in itself. Not every
person reaches this level

The American psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg based his work on Piaget's theory of cognitive
development
04:41
In order to confirm his theory of stages of moral development
04:45
Kohlberg interviewed boys between the ages of 10 and 16
04:49
He analyzed how they would justify their decision when confronted with different hypothetical moral
dilemmas
04:55
We will now present to you the most famous moral dilemma Kohlberg presented to his students
05:00
Let's see what you would do
05:03
The Heinz dilemma: A woman was on her deathbed
05:07
There was only one drug that the doctors thought might save her
05:10
The druggist that made that particular medicine sold it for ten times the price of the production costs
05:16
The sick woman's husband, Heinz, was poor and could not afford to buy the drug
05:21
not even with the financial help of his friends
05:24
Heinz then asked the pharmacist to sell it to him for half the price
05:27
But he refused
05:30
To save the life of his wife, Heinz broke into the man's laboratory and stole the medicine
05:38
Now tell us:
05:39
Should Heinz have stolen the drug?
05:42
Would it change anything if Heinz didn't love his wife?
05:45
What if the person dying was not his wife but a stranger?
05:49
Should the police arrest the druggist for murder if the wife had died?
05:53
Please write your answers and their justifications in the comments below
06:11
If you like this video and the way we explain the subject subscribe to our channel
06:16
We try to explain complex subjects in simple language and cartoons to support students all around the
world in their learning
06:23
If you want to support us, you can go to www.patreon.com/sprouts and donate
06:29
Just $1 from many fans makes a big difference