MODULE

7 KOHLBERG’S MORAL DEVELOPMENT

I. INTRODUCTION
Individuals, when confronted by situations where they need to make moral
decisions, exercise their own ability to use moral reasoning Lawrence Kohlberg was
interested in studying the development of moral reasoning. He based his theory on the
findings of Piaget in studying cognitive development. Our ability to choose right from
wrong is tied with our ability to understand and reason logically.

II. OBJECTIVES
 Identify and articulate each stage of moral development.
 Evaluate one’s personal growth against the stages of development

III. LEARNING ACTIVITIES

A. ENGAGE
Read the moral dilemma below.

Ryan, 17, has been saving up money to buy a ticket for this concert of rock band. His
parents have discouraged him from going as the concert will surely be with a rowdy crowd. The
band is notorious for having out-of-control audience who somehow manages to get drunk and
stoned during the concert. Ryan agreed not to watch anymore. But a day before the concert, Nic,
15-year-old brother of Ryan, saw a corner of what appeared to be a concert ticket showing in the
pocket of Ryan's bag. Nic examined it and confirmed it was indeed a ticket. Looking at Ryan's
bag, Nic also found an extra shirt and 2 sticks of marijuana. So he figured Ryan will go to the
concert after all. That night, Ryan told his parents that he was spending tomorrow night at a
classmate’s house for a school requirement. Then later that evening, he told Nic of his plan to go
to the concert. Nic didn't say anything, but ne found it difficult to sleep that night, thinking
whether to tell their parents or not.

B. EXPLORE
If you were Nic, what would you do?
 C. EXPLAIN
Examine the answers you gave. Compare it with the responses provided below. In which
of these responses is your answer most similar?

Stage 1 - “Yes, I will tell our parents. Because if they found out later that I knew for sure they
will get angry and most likely punish me.”
No, I will not tell because Ryan will make my life difficult and also punish me for
telling.”
Stage 2 - “Yes, I will tell my parents because they will reward me for it. I will subtly ask for that
new IPod that I'm wishing to have."
"No, I will not tell. Ryan will surely grant me a lot of favors for not telling. He’ll not also
squeal on me.”
Stage 3 - “Yes, I will tell so my parents will think I am such an honest boy.”

"No I will not tell. Ryan will think of me as a really cool brother!”
Stage 4 - "Yes, I will tell because we should follow the rules that our parents say."

"No, because it’s been our rule to keep each other’s secrets.”
Stage 5 - "Yes. I will tell because he might be hurt or get in trouble and his welfare is top most
priority.”
“No, because he is big enough to question my parents’ decision not to let him go.”
Stage 6 – “Yes, I will tell because lying is always wrong and I want to be true to what I believe
in.”
“No, because I believe brothers watch out for each other. If he trusted me with this,
I should stay true to him and not say anything.”

D. ELABORATE

Stages of Moral Development

Lawrence Kohlberg built on Piaget's work, and set the groundwork for the present
debate within psychology on moral development. Like Piaget, he believed that children form ways
of thinking through their experiences which include understandings of moral concepts such as
justice, rights, equality and human welfare. Kohlberg followed the development of moral
judgment and extended the ages covered by Piaget, and found out that the process of attaining
moral maturity took longer and occurred slower than Piaget had thought.

If Piaget designed specific tasks (Piagetian tasks) to learn about the cognitive
development of children. Kohlberg utilized moral dilemmas (Kohlberg dilemmas). The case you
read in the Activity part of this module was written for this module but was based on how Kohlberg
wrote his dilemmas. Like Piaget, he presented these dilemmas to the individuals in his research
and asked for their responses. He did not aim to judge whether the responses were right or
wrong. He was interested in analyzing the moral reasoning behind the responses.
 One of the best known of Kohlberg’s (1958) stories concerns a man called Heinz who lived
somewhere in Europe.

By studying the answers from children of different ages to these questions, Kohlberg
hoped to discover how moral reasoning changed as people grew older. The sample comprised 72
Chicago boys aged 10–16 years, 58 of whom were followed up at three-yearly intervals for 20
years (Kohlberg, 1984).

Each boy was given a 2-hour interview based on the ten dilemmas. What Kohlberg was
mainly interested in was not whether the boys judged the action right or wrong, but the reasons
given for the decision. He found that these reasons tended to change as the children got older.

He identified three distinct levels of moral reasoning each with two sub-stages. People
can only pass through these levels in the order listed. Each new stage replaces the reasoning
typical of the earlier stage. Not everyone achieves all the stages.

LEVEL 1 - PRE-CONVENTIONAL MORALITY

At the pre-conventional level, children don’t have a personal code of morality. Instead,
their moral code is shaped by the standards of adults and the consequences of following
or breaking adults’ rules. Authority is outside the individual and reasoning is based on
the physical consequences of actions.

 Stage 1. Obedience and Punishment Orientation. The child/individual is good

in order to avoid being punished. If he/she is punished, he/she must have done
wrong. In other words, moral decisions are based on fear of punishment. For
example, Charlie does not cheat because he is afraid to be marked failed as a
punishment of the teacher.

 Stage 2. Instrumental Orientation / Individualism and Exchange. In this

stage there is limited interest in the needs of others, only to the point where it
might further the individual’s own interests. It’s a matter of “you scratch my back,
and I’ll scratch yours” mentality. e.g. A child is

asked by his parents to do a chore. The child asks “what’s in it for me?” and the
parents offer the child a reward by giving him a treat. Also, in this stage, right
involves equal exchange.

LEVEL 2 - CONVENTIONAL MORALITY

At the conventional level, children begin to internalize the moral standards of valued
adult role models. Authority is internalized but not questioned, and reasoning is based
on the norms of the group to which the person belongs.

 Stage 3. “Good Boy, Nice Girl” Orientation / Good Interpersonal

Relationships. The child/individual is good in order to be seen as being a good
person by others. Therefore, answers relate to the approval of others. For instance,
a politician is around in times of calamities primarily because he wants to appear
good in the public.
  Stage 4. Law and Order Orientation / Maintaining the Social Order. The
child/individual becomes aware of the wider rules of society, so judgments concern
obeying the rules in order to uphold the law and to avoid guilt. E.g. Jose believes
that he needs to attend the flag ceremony because it is on the school rules.

LEVEL 3 - POST-CONVENTIONAL MORALITY

Individual judgment is based on self-chosen principles, and moral reasoning is based
on individual rights and justice. According to Kohlberg this level of moral reasoning is
as far as most people get. In other words, morality is completely internalized and not
based on external standards.

 Stage 5. Social Contract Orientation. The child/individual becomes aware that

while rules/laws might exist for the good of the greatest number, there are times
when they will work against the interest of particular individuals.

 Stage 6. Universal, Ethical, Principle Orientation. People at this stage have

developed their own set of moral guidelines which may or may not fit the law. The
principles apply to everyone. E.g., human rights, justice, and equality. The person
will be prepared to act to defend these principles even if it means going against the
rest of society in the process and having to pay the consequences of disapproval
and or imprisonment. Kohlberg doubted few people reached this stage.

E. EVALUATE
The Heinz Dilemma

A woman was on her deathbed. There was one drug that the doctors thought might
save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered.
The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug
cost him to produce. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 or a small dose of
the drug. The sick woman’s husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the
money, but he could only get together about S1.000 which is half of what it cost. He told
the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later.
But the druggist said: “No, I discovered the drug and I’m going to make money from it."
So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man’s laboratory to steal the drug for his wife.

Should Heinz have broken into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or
why not?

From a theoretical point of view, it is not important what the participant thinks that
Heinz should do. Kohlberg’s theory holds that the justification the participant offers is
what is significant, the form of their response.
 Below are some of many examples of possible arguments. Based on the given arguments,
identify the stage among Kohlberg’s six stages of moral development:

__________________ 1. Heinz should not steal the medicine because he will consequently be put
in prison which will mean he is a bad person.
__________________ 2. 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.
__________________ 3. Heinz should not steal the medicine because prison is an awful place,
and he would more likely languish in a jail cell than over his wife’s
death.
__________________ 4. Heinz should steal the medicine because his wife expects it; he wants
to be a good husband.
__________________ 5. Heinz should not steal the drug because stealing is bad and he is no a
criminal; he has tried to do everything he can without breaking the law,
you cannot blame him.
__________________ 6. Heinz should not steal the medicine because the law prohibits stealing,
making it illegal.
__________________ 7. Heinz should steal the drug for his wife but also take the prescribed
punishment for the crime as well as paying the druggist what he is
owed. Criminals cannot just run around without regard for the law;
actions have consequences.
__________________ 8. Heinz should steal the medicine because everyone has a right to choose
life, regardless of the law.

__________________ 9. Heinz should steal the medicine, because saving a human life is a more
fundamental value than the property rights of another person.
__________________ 10. Heinz should not steal the medicine, because others may need the
medicine just as badly, and their lives are equally significant.