morality is something outside
of the person - not a central part of themselves
Stage 2. Individualism and Exchange
still a basic concern for oneself
as opposed to society (therefore, still classified as preconventional thinking)
increasing attention to others
interpreted in terms of their
relationship to the person
others involved on an exchange
basis (e.g. tradeoff between what happens to me vs. what happens to other
person)
change in focus on
punishment as evidence that the action was wrong, to notion of punishment
as a risk one must take sometimes
beginning of a sense of fairness
Level II. Conventional Morality
Stage 3. Good Interpersonal
Relationships
characteristic
of teenagers
move toward
the notion of "goodness" and "badness"
logical arguments
are made on the basis of character as opposed to punishments (internal
vs. external orientation)
introduction
of the idea that everyone would behave in the same way ... this is
what you would expect in a conventional or usual situation
the situation is relative ...
not black and white
similar
with Piaget's second stage of morality (stops here)
Stage 4. Maintaining the Social
Order
extension of the reference group
for the moral decision - from a family-focused approach to a society-focused
approach
key point: the person is thinking
as a member of society - not as a member of a family
generalization to the notion
that we should obey laws so that everything works more smoothly
even though there may be personal
reasons for immoral actions, they still cannot be condoned using the broad
view
of society
someone who uses this approach
is thinking from the point of view of an actual member of society
note that the answers in stage
4 are identical to the answers in stage 1 thinking:
stage 4 participants can provide
the reasoning behind the answer
Level III. Postconventional Morality
Stage 5. Social Contract and
Individual Rights
society should
be more than smoothly functioning ... it should be "just"
definition spelled out in more
theoretical terms
idea of freedom more pronounced
everyone has some basic rights
society has some type of open
(i.e. democratic) system for introducing change
notion of a social contract
beginning notions of what is
moral and what is immoral
some tolerance for elevating
people's rights (e.g. life) over legalities (i.e. laws)
bottom line: concern over what
a society should value
Stage 6. Universal Principles
sometimes, simple democratic
processes end with solutions which are perceived to be unjust
"tyranny of the majority"
Stage 6 influenced by Kant, Rawls,
Gandhi and Martin Luther King
everyone has the same rights,
so we cannot benefit one person if by so doing we harm another
in order to truly understand
a situation, we need to see it from the eyes of the other person(s)
ultimately, everyone would come
to the same conclusion about any moral situation ... we would all see everyone
else's point of view
... therefore we need impartiality
... also need total equality
for all persons involved (nobody is better than anyone else)
this is a very demanding view
of morality:
... therefore only a few people
will achieve it
Colby et al, 1987: stage 6 may
be definable only in theory - not practice
civil disobedience:
a la Martin Luther King
cannot have justice when laws
are by definition, unjust ... must challenge the laws themselves
Summary
Stage 1 - doing
whatever is necessary to avoid punishment
Stage 2 - beginning
of relativity (so you can make deals)
Stage 3 - being
"good"
Stage 4 - movement
from thinking of oneself to thinking of society
Stage 5 - notion
of people's basic rights and the requirement that they should be maintained
democratically
Stage 6 - theoretical
definition of principles of justice
Theoretical Issues
How Development Occurs
as per Piaget, Kohlberg's concept
of development did not involve genetic determination
moral development must involve
people's thoughts about moral problems
any social experience only provides
the "opportunity" for people to think about moral problems
we often learn best when our positions
are challenged by contradictory evidence
Kohlberg, 1976: role-taking sometimes
allows us to compare various viewpoints
only important requirement: "open
and democratic" interactions (pg. 156)
The Stage Concept
Kohlberg followed Piaget's criteria
for stages
1. Qualitative Differences
e.g. looking at morality from
the point of view of avoidance of punishment, is qualitatively different
from looking at it from the point of view of social justice
cannot "add up" behaviors in
one stage to get to the next stage
2. Structured Wholes
i.e. generalized responses -
not isolated or specific to the moral dilemma being tested
Colby et al., 1983: using 9 dilemmas,
subjects were consistent in their responses about 67% of the time
3. Invariant Sequence
not possible to skip a
stage
note: individual differences
across children in terms of how high a stage they reach
cross-sectional studies:
Kohlberg, 1963: younger children
use lower stages; older children use higher stages
problem: no information on progress
through stages
longitudinal studies:
Holstein, 1973; Kohlberg & Kramer,
1969:
inconclusive results (some regression,
some stage skipping)
Colby et al, 1983:
used 51 subjects from original
sample
revision of the scoring system
(more attention to answer reasoning than to answer
content)
results (no stage-skipping, regression
found in 5-15% of boys)
stage 4 reasoning found to be
dominant, but not until boys were in their 20's
4. Hierarchic Integration
Kohlberg argued that earlier
reasoning is integrated with reasoning from higher stages (i.e. not lost)
e.g. concern about our individual
position (Stage 3) < social organization (Stage 4) < "more" than simple
social organization (Stage 5)
Rest, 1973: adolescents prefer
the highest stage of reasoning over lower ones
Kohlberg, 1981: at the highest
levels (e.g. Stage 5), moral reasoning is abstracted from our personal
life
similar to Werner's notion of
differentiation
5. Universal Sequence
moral reasoning is held to be
universal - despite the differences across cultures
Kohlberg & Gilligan, 1971: different
cultures can teach opposite behaviors (e.g. fighting vs. passivity), yet
the logic to support the moral decisions is the same across both cultures
e.g. punishment is the major
concern at Stage 1 ... either you might get punished or you likely won't
get punished for fighting
Edwards, 1981: cross sectional
studies in various cultures suggest that children move sequentially through
stages
Cole & Cole, 1996: differences
between urban and rural cultures
e.g. US - Stage 4 predominant;
tribal communities - Stage 3 predominant
Nisan & Kohlberg, 1982: changes
in experiences after leaving traditional communities, lead to conflicts
which cause people to look at moral situations differently
Keniston, 1971: similar effects
associated with university studies
Moral Thought and Moral Behavior
no inherent connection between
thought and behavior ... but it would be nice if there were one
Kohlberg et al, 1975: due to greater
influence of laws and rules, greater likelihood of moral behavior in people
at Stage 4 than at Stage 3
conflicting data on whether or
not this is true
Moral Thought and Other Forms of
Cognition
Kohlberg, 1976: concept of role-taking
capacities as related to stages of moral development
Stage 1 - one role ... adult
authority figures
Stage 2 - appreciation of more
than one role (hence the possibility of making deals which benefit both
parties)
Stage 3 - increasing concern
for the feelings of others
Stage 4 - increasing concern
for the notion of society (more abstract than definable others)
Stage 5 - emphasis on the democratic
process
Stage 6 - abstract approach to
the notion of justice
Colby et al, 1987: moral development
dependent on logical development (therefore, could think logically but
have poor moral judgment)
Gilligan on the Feminine Voice
Gilligan, 1982:
Kohlberg's theories developed from a male sample ... therefore are inappropriate
for females
males: "rules,
rights and abstract principles" (pg. 163)
females: "interpersonal
relationships and the ethics of compassion and care" (pg. 163)
different orientations of women
would result in lower morality scores (e.g. Stage 3)
moral dilemmas should be related
to real life experiences (e.g. abortion)
Walker, 1984: few gender differences
using Kohlberg's evaluation instrument
Lyons, 1983: males more concerned
with rational view of morality, females more concerned with relationship
view
Walker, DeVries & Trevethan,
1987: differences between logical/social justice orientation of morality
and personal relationships orientation tend to decrease as one moves higher
in moral thinking stages
Implications
for Education
Kohlberg, 1970: best if a
society could have people at Stage 4 and some at Stages 5&6
if children
need to be actively involved in order to change, moral principles
cannot
be "taught" by adults
Blatt & Kohlberg, 1975: moral
dilemmas given to students in grade 6
process involved student
debate, followed by instructor explanation, followed by further debate
12 weeks of discussion =
movement up one stage
more movement if student
was interested in the debate (i.e. cognitive dissonance creates a need
to obtain closure ... therefore change in moral understanding)
Power & Reimer, 1979: Just
Community approach
creation of a high school
program which stresses community orientation
one year - movement from
Stage 2 to Stage 3 behaviors
problem: adult intervention
= interference with independent thought of children
Evaluation
extension of
Piaget's moral thinking stages to adulthood
strong point:
notion of "postconventional morality" (pg. 168)
i.e. morality
which is independent of individual values (above the law?)
critics:
Hogan,
1975: concern about moral notions which are not connected with
law
Simpson, 1974:
too much orientation on Western notions of rationality
Tronto,
1987: possibility that indigenous societies have a sense of morality
which
is closer to that proposed by Gilligan
proponents:
Broughton,
1983: influence of Kant in Kohlberg's work allows for true progress
against too much state power
