KOHLBERG’S STAGES

OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT

PREPARED BY:
REYMOND D. PARAN
GIL JOY TAGORMACON
CHRISTINE RABANES
PRINCE ELDE QUIMANHAN
 KOHLBERG’S
BIOGRAPHY

(born October 25, 1927,

Bronxville, New York, U.S.
—died January 17, 1987,
Boston, Massachusetts),
American psychologist and
educator known for his
theory of moral
development.
Lawrence Kohlberg formulated a theory asserting that individuals
progress through six distinct stages of moral reasoning from
infancy to adulthood.
He grouped these stages into three broad categories of moral
reasoning, pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional.
Each level is associated with increasingly complex stages of moral
development.
Kohlberg suggested that people move through these stages in a
fixed order and that moral understanding is linked to cognitive
development.
 HEINZ DILEMMA
Lawrence Kohlberg (1958) agreed with Piaget’s (1932) theory of moral development in
principle but wanted to develop his ideas further.

He used Piaget’s storytelling technique to tell people stories involving moral dilemmas. In
each case, he presented a choice to be considered, for example, between the rights of some
authority and the needs of some deserving individual unfairly treated.

After presenting people with various moral dilemmas, Kohlberg categorized their
responses into different stages of moral reasoning.

Using children’s responses to a series of moral dilemmas, Kohlberg established that the
reasoning behind the decision was a greater indication of moral development than the
actual answer
 LEVEL 1 – PRECONVENTIONAL
MORALITY
Preconventional morality is the first level of moral development, lasting until
approximately age 8. During this level, children accept the authority (and moral code)
of others.

Preconventional morality is when people follow rules because they don’t want to get
in trouble or they want to get a reward. This level of morality is mostly based on what
authority figures like parents or teachers tell you to do rather than what you think is
right or wrong.

For example, if an action leads to punishment, it must be bad; if it leads to a reward, it

must be good.
Stage 1. Obedience and Punishment Orientation. The
child/individual is good to avoid being punished. If a person is
punished, they must have done wrong.

Stage 2. Individualism and Exchange. At this stage, children

recognize that there is not just one right view handed down by
the authorities. Different individuals have different viewpoints.
 LEVEL 2: CONVENTIONAL LEVEL

At the conventional level, conformity to social rules

remains important to the individual. However, the emphasis
shifts from self-interest to relationships with other people
and social systems. The individual strives to support rules
that are set forth by others such as parents, peers, and the
government in order to win their approval or to maintain
social order.
Stage 3: Good Boy/Nice Girl orientation
Behaviour is determined by social approval. The individual wants to
maintain or win the affection and approval of others by being a “good
person.”

Stage 4: Law and order orientation

Social rules and laws determine behaviour. The individual now takes into
consideration a larger perspective, that of societal laws. Moral decision
making becomes more than consideration of close ties to others. The
individual believes that rules and laws maintain social order that is worth
preserving.
 Level 3: Post-conventional or principled
level

At the postconventional level, the individual moves beyond the

perspective of his or her own society. Morality is defined in
terms of abstract principles and values that apply to all
situations and societies. The individual attempts to take the
perspective of all individuals.
Stage 5: Social contract orientation
Individual rights determine behaviour. The individual views laws and rules as flexible
tools for improving human purposes. That is, given the right situation, there are
exceptions to rules. When laws are not consistent with individual rights and the interests
of the majority, they do not bring about good for people and alternatives should be
considered.

Stage 6: Universal ethical principle orientation

According to Kohlberg, this is the highest stage of functioning. However, he claimed
that some individuals will never reach this level. At this stage, the appropriate action is
determined by one’s self-chosen ethical principles of conscience.
 PROBLEMS WITH KOHLBERG’S METHOD

1. The dilemmas are artificial (i.e. they lack ecological validity)

Most of the dilemmas are unfamiliar to most people (Rosen, 1980). For
example it is all very well in the Heinz
dilemma asking subjects whether Heinz should steal the drug to save his
wife. However Kohlberg’s subjects
were aged between 7 and 16. They have never been married, and never been
placed in a situation remotely
like the one in the story.
2. The sample is biased
According to Gilligan (1977), because Kohlberg’s theory
was based on an all-male sample, the stages reflect a
male definition of morality (it’s androcentric). Mens' morality is
based on abstract principles of law and
justice, while womens' is based on principles of compassion and
care.
3. The dilemmas are hypothetical (i.e. they are not real)
In a real situation what course of action a person takes will have real
consequences – and sometimes very
unpleasant ones for themselves. We just don’t know. The fact that
Kohlberg’s theory is heavily dependent on an individual’s
response to an artificial dilemma brings question to the validity of the
results obtained through this
research.
4. Poor research design
The way in which Kohlberg carried out his research when
constructing this theory may not have been the
best way to test whether all children follow the same sequence of
stage progression. His research was cross-
sectional, meaning that he interviewed children of different ages to
see what level of moral development
they were at.
 LAWRENCE KOHLBERG'S THEORY
OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT

 has faced several criticisms and challenges over the

years. Some of the key problems and criticisms
include:
 Cultural Bias:

Kohlberg's theory was initially developed based

on research conducted in Western cultures,
particularly the United States. Critics argue that it
may not be universally applicable, as moral values
and reasoning can vary significantly across
cultures.
 Gender Bias:

Kohlberg's original research found that males

tended to score higher on his stages of moral
development than females. This led to accusations
of gender bias in his theory, as it suggested that
women's moral development was somehow inferior
to that of men.
 Limited Scope:

Kohlberg's theory primarily focuses on moral

reasoning and cognitive development, largely
ignoring emotional and situational factors that can
influence moral decision-making. This limited scope
has been criticized for not fully capturing the
complexity of moral development.
 Lack of Empirical Evidence:

Some critics argue that Kohlberg's theory lacks

strong empirical evidence to support its stages of
moral development. While it has been influential,
not all studies have consistently replicated his
findings.
 Overemphasis on Justice:

Kohlberg's theory places a strong emphasis on

justice-based moral reasoning, which may not
adequately account for other moral perspectives, such
as care-based ethics or virtue ethics. Critics argue that
this narrow focus limits the theory's applicability.
 Stage Sequence:

Kohlberg's theory suggests a fixed sequence of

moral development stages, but not everyone
progresses through these stages in the same way or
at the same pace. This rigid stage model has been
criticized for oversimplifying the complexity of
moral development.
 Lack of Practical Application:

Critics argue that Kohlberg's theory does not

provide clear guidance on how to promote moral
development in practical settings, such as schools or
workplaces. It is more descriptive than prescriptive.
 Moral Relativism:

Some critics argue that Kohlberg's theory assumes a

form of moral objectivism, where certain moral
principles are universally applicable. This
assumption is debated in the field of ethics, and some
believe in moral relativism, which challenges the
idea of universal moral truths.
Despite these criticisms, Kohlberg's theory has
had a significant impact on the study of moral
development and continues to be a valuable
framework for understanding how individuals
reason about moral issues. However, it is
important to consider these criticisms when
applying or interpreting the theory
THANK YOU!