Pre-conventional Level
Stage 1 - Obedience and Punishment:: people behave according to socially acceptable norms because they are told to do so by some authority figure (e.g., parent or teacher). The threat or application of punishment compels the obedience.
Stage 2 - Individualism, Instrumentalism and Exchange: characterized by a view that right behavior means acting in one's own best interests.
Conventional Level
Stage 3 - "Good boy/girl": is characterized by an attitude which seeks to do what will gain the approval of others
Stage 4 - Law and Order: oriented to abiding by the law and responding to the obligations of duty
Post-Conventional Level
Stage 5 - Social Contract: is an understanding of social mutuality and a genuine interest in the welfare of others.
Stage 6 - Principled Conscience: is based on respect for universal principle and the demands of individual conscience
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. (snycorva.cortland.edu, Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development, 1996)
Putting in practice the Kohlberg’s theory, I created three stories, which will be read to kids, older children and young adults. The first story is for two kids within the range of four to ten years old:
The remote control plain
Your best friend forgets his favorite remote control plane in your home. When he finds out, he calls you and asks you to please take care of the plane until his mom can pick it up. Because it is his favorite toy, your friend specially asks for a favor, that you don’t let anyone else play with it. A few hours later, a friend of your mom stops by your home with her little son. The little kid notices the plane over the living room bookcase, and asks if he can play with it. You said no, because you have promised your friend that nobody else will be playing with that special plane. The kid starts crying because you don’t let him play with it. Your mom gets pretty upset with you and says, “if you don’t let him play with the plane, there will be no TV for a week”. What would you do?
Do you go ahead and say, “ok, he can play with it” to avoid the punishment?
Or, will you not brake the promise to your friend and you to take the week without TV and Playstation?
According to Kohlbergs’s theory, the kids within the range of four to ten years old, will be reasoning the situation in a pre-conventional level, probably responding to a stage 1 (obedience and punishment).
When I read the story to Marcello (male, 7 years old), he answered the following:
“I will give him the plane if he promised not to break it”
This is clearly a stage 1; he doesn’t want to suffer the punishment, and shares the plane. It matches with what Kohlberg’s theory predicts. When I read it to Jason (Male, 9 years old), he answered the following: “A whole week? No way! He can play with the plane but without the remote control” This answer also fits the stage 1, as the Kohlberg’s theory predicted.
The second story is for two girls within the range of ten and thirteen years old:
The Festival
Your best friend always dreamed with being a singer. After many years of taking classes at school and practicing, she gets a change to perform at a spring festival. It will be just one song. She is very happy that she was given the opportunity, and invites a huge group of friends. The day of the performance, she sings loud and out of rhythm. Unfortunately, this was her worst performance ever. You see the public is laughing at her, and making offensive comments. Luckily, your friend she so happy, that she haven’t notice it. At the end of the show she approaches you, asking your opinion about her performance. She also tells you that based on your opinion, she will ask the show coordinator to sing one more time. What do you do? Are you honest and tell her that, the performance was bad and that you don’t want people to laugh at her any more?
Or, do you tell her that she did fabulous, so she doesn’t get upset with you?
According to Kohlbergs’s theory, these older children within the range of ten to thirteen years old, will decide according to the conventional level of moral reasoning.
When I read the story to Sabrina (female, 11 years old), she answered the following:
“Why should I tell her? What if she gets mad at me?” This answer fits into the stage 3. She doesn’t want to have a problem in the relationship with her friend. When I read it to Jennifer (female, 13 years old), she answered the following: “I will tell her that I had to go to the restroom. Don’t want to offend her ” This will also fit in stage 3. She is also placing priority in the relationship.
The third story is for two people above fifteen years old:
The Cafeteria
You heard a conversation between M.D.s at the hospital cafeteria. One of them is telling the other that he gave an extra dose of morphine to a terminal cancer patient who was terribly suffering. He also says that it was his own decision, as he new she had just a few weeks left of miserable life. He also says that he will not tell the patient’s family, as they may not understand that it was done to stop everyone’s pain. The M.D. also says that it was the best thing to do, as the patient was not responding to pain medication. What would you do? Would you report him to the Hospital, even if what he did was the best for the terminal patient? Or, you just go home and try to forget what you heard, even knowing that the patient’s family has the right to know and decide about it?
According to Kohlbergs’s theory, these two people above fifteen years old, are most likely to reasoning the situation on a conventional level.
When I read the story to Carlos (male, 18 years old), he answered the following:
“I will not report him. Sometimes people want to keep loved one alive and do not consider that the person is in pain and suffering. The morphine will not cause pain and it will save pain to the patient and to the family. That’s selfish” The answer seems to be based on a stage 6 of post-conventional thinking. It is not what is predicted by the theory, as is uncommon. I think person might be raised in a open minded home, and he was very touched with the fact that the patient was in pain and not responding to pain killers.
When I read it to Ann (female, 32 years old), she answered the following:
“Yes, I would report him. Nobody has the right to make a decision like that for another human being.” The answer seems to match the stage four of conventional level of moral reasoning. This answer is the same as the prediction in Kohlberg’s theory
Kohlberg’s theory is in my opinion very narrow. Just considering all the cultures we have in the world, this theory is not very appropriate. Six stages are not enough to correctly classify all possible answers. Also, each situation is different and a decision might be influenced by very specific reasons that are not considered in the stages and moral reasoning levels. His theory is also based in males only. How can we extend the theory to females too? It is not scientific. If we do extend it to females, then we are making a personal assumption based on a personal prediction without any scientific or realistic basis.
References
Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development, 1996 <snycorva.cortland.edu>
SUMMARY OF L. KOHLBERG'S STAGES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT, Robert N. Barger, Ph.D <www.nd.edu/~rbarger/kohlberg.html>
Kohlberg’s Moral Theory <www.uic.edu/educ/college/centers/moraled.htm>