Topic 3: Stages of Moral Development

Introduction

Experience tells us that learning what is appropriate or inappropriate, good or bad

and right or wrong takes a progressive start from early childhood to adulthood. The
importance of parents and institutions of learning and socializing are formative of moral
development. Moral development refers to the process whereby an individual form a
progressive sense of what is right and wrong, proper and improper. Human moral sense
is commonly seen to involve a movement from simple and finite definitions of right and
wrong to more complex ways of distinguishing right from wrong (Dorough, 2011). Piaget
and Kohlberg are two leading psychologists who theorized that our moral sense develops
progressively.

Piaget’s Stages of Moral Development

Jean Piaget observed four stages in the child’s development of moral

understanding of rules, based largely on his observation of children’s games:

The first stage characterizes the sensorimotor period of development (under four
years) in which the child is still mastering motor and social skills and unconcerned with
morality. In the second stage (4-7) game playing is egocentric; children don’t understand
rules very well, or they make them up as they go along. There is neither a strong sense
of cooperation nor of competition. They exhibit unconditional respect for rules and
submission to authority.

The third stage (7-11) is characterized by incipient cooperation. The child

recognizes that rules are arbitrary and can be changed with group consensus. Social
interactions become more formalized as regards rules of the game. The child learns and
understands both cooperative and competitive behavior. But one child’s understanding of
rules may still differ from the next, thus mutual understanding still tends to be incomplete.
In the fourth stage (11-12) cooperation is more earnest and the child comes to understand
rules in a more legalistic fashion. It is the stage of genuine cooperation in which the older
child shows a kind of legalistic fascination with the rules. He enjoys settling differences of
opinion concerning the rules, inventing new rules, and elaborating on them.
Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development

Lawrence Kohlberg admired Piaget’s approach to studying children’s conceptions

of morality but he went beyond those and proposed his own elaborate theory.

Level Stage Social Orientation

Principled Conscience: Individual
Abstract notions of 6 principles of conscience. Takes
Post- justice; Rights of account of likely views of everyone
Conventional others can override affected by a moral decision.
obedience to rules
Social Contract: Difference between
or laws.
5 moral and legal right. Recognition that
rules should sometimes be broken.
Views of others Law and Order: Obedience to
matter; Avoidance 4 authority. Importance of “doing of
Conventional of blame; seeking one’s duty”.
approval
Good Boy/Good Girl: Good intentions.
3 Behaving in ways that conform to
“good behavior”.
Right and Wrong is Individualism, Instrumentalism and
Pre- determined by 2 Exchange: Rewards. The right way to
Conventional reward or behave is the way that is rewarded.
punishment
Obedience and Punishment: Whatever
1 leads to punishment is wrong.

The first level of moral thinking is that generally found at the elementary school
level. In the first stage of this level, people behave according to socially acceptable norms
because they are told to do so by some authority figure (e.g., parent or teacher). This
obedience is compelled by the threat or application of punishment. The second stage of
this level is characterized by a view that right behavior means acting in one's own best
interests.

The second level of moral thinking is that generally found in society, hence the
name "conventional." The first stage of this level (stage 3) is characterized by an attitude
which seeks to do what will gain the approval of others. The second stage is one oriented
to abiding by the law and responding to the obligations of duty.

The third level of moral thinking is one that Kohlberg felt is not reached by the
majority of adults. Its first stage (stage 5) is an understanding of social mutuality and a
genuine interest in the welfare of others. The last stage (stage 6) is based on respect for
universal principle and the demands of individual conscience. While Kohlberg always
believed in the existence of Stage 6 and had some nominees for it, he could never get
enough subjects to define it, much less observe their longitudinal movement to it.

Kohlberg believed that individuals could only progress through these stages one
stage at a time. That is, they could not "jump" stages. They could not, for example, move
from an orientation of selfishness to the law and order stage without passing through the
good boy/girl stage. They could only come to a comprehension of a moral rationale one
stage above their own. Thus, according to Kohlberg, it was important to present them with
moral dilemmas for discussion which would help them to see the reasonableness of a
"higher stage" morality and encourage their development in that direction. The last
comment refers to Kohlberg's moral discussion approach. He saw this as one of the ways
in which moral development can be promoted through formal education. Note that
Kohlberg believed, as did Piaget, that most moral development occurs through social
interaction. The discussion approach is based on the insight that individuals develop as
a result of cognitive conflicts at their current stage.

Critiques of Kohlberg’s Theory

There were a good number of psychologists who somehow did not agree with
Kohlberg's model and their arguments are valid. Vitz (1994) pointed out that this model
became popular for many years especially in education. In spite of that, the model suffers
from a remarkable number of grave weaknesses, many of which constitute grounds for
rejecting it. Despite Kohlberg's rebuttal of his critics, the system has not recovered from
the multiplicity and gravity of the critiques and at present there is no convincing reason to
accept Kohlberg's system. The weaknesses in his model have become increasingly clear
and, in spite of salvage attempts, it appears to be receding as a focus of research and
theoretical interest. To summarize those critiques, they are the following:

1. The critique of a ‘completely good self’

2. The feminist critique
3. The moral relativity critique
4. The ‘no moral responsibility’ critique
5. The critique of Kohlberg’s atheism
6. The empathy and emotion critique: the rejection of Stage 1
7. The empirical critique: the inability to find various stages
8. Over-dependency on language: Critique of all stages
9. The methodological critique of the Kohlberg scale
10. Structure vs. content: the empirical critique
11. Structure vs. content: the theoretical critique
12. The ideological critique
13. The sexual morality critique
14. The narrative critique
15. The virtues critique
16. Recent philosophical critiques