This essay will discuss and evaluate the six stage of Kohlberg’s moral development theory. Before Lawrence Kohlberg, Jean Piaget, a swiss psychologist, thought that there were only two stages to moral development, “one that is subject to the rule of others and another that is subject only to a person’s own rules” (Benson and Collin 2012). He came to the conclusion that the change in heteronomous and autonomous morality depends on changes in cognitive skills, the change in perspective of problem solving and interactions with their peers. Lawrence Kohlberg was inspired by this theory but he found that there are actually three stages, divided into two parts each, leading to moral development. His theory, although critiqued, has become one of the starting points for all research pertaining to morality. The three stages of moral development according to Kohlberg include preconventional, conventional and post conventional.
The easiest way to understand the Kohlberg theory is to refer back to the ‘Heinz’ dilemma, an analogy concocted by Kohlberg to determine ones moral development. The story goes as follows, a man cannot afford the only medicine to save his wife’s life, the doctor will not give him the medicine for free, Heinz begs his friends for the money but does not gather enough, so Heinz decides to steal the medication from the doctor. The psychologist assessed the answers of the males tested as an indicator as to where someone would be placed in his six stages of moral development. Kohlberg focuses on how they justify their decision rather than what answers they choose. Was the man right to steal the medicine for his wife? If she was a stranger would it still be right? If it was a pet and not a human, would that make a difference? Why should the laws be broken to save somebody? And should the doctor who would not give Heinz the medicine go to jail for murder? Each question dictates a certain quality someone possesses. A person who decides Heinz should not steal the drugs because he will go to prison, is placed in stage one of the preconventional stage, due to their self-interest and fear of punishment. Someone who thinks Heinz should steal the medicine to feel a sense of self gratitude fits in stage two, their own personal fulfilment outweighs anyone else’s. People in stage three are the first in the conventional stage, they might look at him and think it is his duty as a husband to help his wife, these people must live up to the societal values expected of them and would look for approval off their parents to be called a “good boy/girl” as children. Stage four focuses on people who believe in the law, Heinz should steal the medicine but be reprimanded for his actions. They believe in maintaining social order. The fifth stage, first in the post-conventional stage, houses people who can see that some laws can be broken in order to save a life. The laws of society can only be followed if they allow all human rights and values to be carried out fairly. They believe Heinz should save his wife regardless of the law, her life transcends all decrees in society. The final stage, stage six, is such a rare moral quality that it has been tagged too radical. This stage would involve people like Gandhi and Martin Luther King, who spent their lives against unjust and oppressive laws, a stage where someone’s morals are based on universal values. They don’t even consider the personal risk involved and humans rights would take precedence over all of societies rules and laws. Heinz would be allowed to steal the drug and not be incarcerated in the view of stage six, because he saved a life.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
Although Kohlberg’s theory is well thought out, it is clear there are some factors that don’t make this test fair, for example all the people interviewed for this experiment were male. A longitudinal study, 1958, was carried out over twelve weeks including seventy-five young American males between the ages of 10 to 16 and at the end of the test they were between 22 and 28. These males were compared to those in Canada, Britain, Mexico, Taiwan and Turkey. He found that the boys progressed through the stages as they got older and they only moved up, nobody moved down. Typically at ages 10 to 13 the boys were in stage 2, at 16 the boys rarely moved up to stage 6, however stage 5 was more prevailing, it showed these participants moved up Kohlberg’s scale with age and experience, these “stages themselves increasingly employ more stable and general standards” .The religion of the boys did not come into play with the results of the experiment neither did their race, it was there social status that gave way to the differences between them. Kohlberg found that the middle to upper-class boys reached higher stages than the economically challenged boys. Kohlberg was told by his anthropological friends that he would have to forget all “culture bound moral concepts and stories and start from scratch, learning a whole new set of values for each new culture” (Kohlberg 1968). He asked a group of Taiwanese boys a moral dilemma involving a man who stole bread for his dying wife, much like the Heinz dilemma, the mindset of the boys was completely different compared to the American boys. They said ‘the man must save his wife because if she dies he will have to pay for a costly funeral’ and ‘if she dies who will cook his dinner?’. Their village had big ceremonial funerals and the women stayed at home to look after the men, the boys domestic life had a sway on their decisions.
Some of Kohlberg’s colleagues and critics of his work argued that the relationship between moral thinking and moral behaviour are very different. It is easy for people to think about what the right thing to do is, especially when they know they are being scrutinised by a professional psychologist. However, when the situation calls for action, there is only split seconds for a person to decide how they are going to engage which can be completely different to what they initially thought. The raw moral reasoning that Kohlberg wanted is only made through a false state if mind.
One of the most obvious problems with Kohlberg’s research is that it is purely focused towards male participants, there was no females involved. Carol Gilligan is an American psychologist who argued that this theory was sex-biased, the answers of the boys are purely derived from a male perspective on society and the laws it upholds. She explains that women are usually responsive than selfish, she uses the example of women getting abortions, some get them because their boyfriends asked them to or they are worried about their parents judgement. It is hard for a woman to make the decision for herself according to Gilligan. Men can have looked at women and thought their moral code was compromised because of their biological makeup, “The solution has been to consider women as either deviant or deficient in their development.” (Gilligan 1985). Masculinity has been associated with a clear mind and a focused moral judgement which is pure sex-stereotyping. The physical differences between them are, male brains are bigger than female brains by about 8-10%, however there are more linkages between the right and left side of the brain in women then there are with men, this means women can base a decision on analytical and intuitive bases. The female brain has a bigger limbic system “One of the things the limbic system is responsible for is the emotional evaluation of social and interpersonal interactions such as conversations, leading to the assumption that women are more sensitive in emotionally evaluating social interactions.” (Ingalhalikar et al. 2013).
This implies that a woman’s brain is more physically capable of making a rational choice than a man’s.
In conclusion, Kohlberg’s theory has brought a great amount of research to the field and is the basis of all works within morality. His work has been linked to the principles in a classroom as it applies to children and teenagers in schools to prepare them for later life and possibly make the world morally better. Morality is evident all throughout our lives, it lives within our relationships, friendships, the reflection of our personality and our professional lives. It is something incredibly important in social life and cannot be overlooked in politics, education and communication. Kohlberg has shown that we can progress through the stages of morality and we can always improve ourselves. However the faults within his work create room for enormous doubt, Kohlberg’s experiment is ironically morally wrong and gender-biased so cannot be accountable for all genders, but it shows that throughout life experiences, we learn to be morally stable. If his research had been done with women the results could have been drastically different due to the contrasting physicality of male and female brains. Kohlberg’s experiment, if carried out as a double blind experiment, would have had genuine results and not falsified ones. Had the subjects not known they were being studied for morality, their thought process might have been swayed. Children’s personal situations and cultural values can also disrupt the perfect slots Kohlberg has allocated for the six groups of people. Studies show that people under pressure or scrutiny experience moments of confusion and become the person they feel is appropriate for the time, like walking into a shop and seeing CCTV cameras, you get a sense you have done something wrong, when in reality it is the opposite. In this case the participants thoughts are adjusted to what they believe the interviewer wants. His six stages seem like boxes or steps for people to take in order to reach a moral and mental equilibrium, it is unfair to say that his work is positively correct and that we should strive for the sixth stage, In depth Kohlberg’s stages are extremely useful in determining the morality of an individual, even if it just gives a brief idea of where they are in terms of moral reasoning, however the realistic actions of the individual differ from their initial thoughts in a time of crisis. If the Swiss psychologist had carried a double blind, non-gender-biased, fair experiment instead of the biased and one sided one that was executed, perhaps there would be no reason to doubt about twenty percent of his findings. In truth morality is a constantly changing factor within children and adolescence, they learn from experiences, age and are constantly moving to their fitting stage.
Bibliography
- (Benson and Collin 2012) Benson, N., Collin, C. (2012) The Psychology Book, DK; UK: London. P 292-293
- (Gilligan 1985) Gilligan,C.(1985)[online], Sfonline.barnard.edu,available:http://sfonline.barnard.edu/sfxxx/documents/gilligan.pdf
- (Ingalhalikar et al. 2013) Ingalhalikar, M., Smith, A., Parker, D. (2013) Male Vs. Female Brains - Is There Scientific Evidence For Our Differences? [online], NeuroNation.
- (Kohlberg 1971) Kohlberg, L. (1971) Stages Of Moral Development [online], available: http://ericmazur.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Kohlberg-Moral-Development.pdf
- (Kohlberg 1968) Kohlberg, L. (1968) Kohlberg's 'The Child As Moral Philosopher' [online], Indiana.edu, available: http://www.indiana.edu/~koertge/Sem104/Kohlberg.html
Stuck on your essay?
