Kohlberg’s stages of moral development (1958) are the stages in thinking about right and wrong that everyone goes through growing up. Each stage builds on the one before so you have to go through them in order. You can get stuck at any stage, though most make it to Stage 4. The first three stages are universally human.
Kohlberg loved to ask questions like the Heinz Dilemma:
Heinz’s wife is dying. The druggist in town has discovered the cure. It cost him $200 to make but offers it to Heinz for $2000. Heinz asks everyone he knows for money but can only come up with $1000. He promises to pay the rest later. The druggist says no: he wants to make money from his discovery. That night Heinz breaks into the shop and takes the medicine.
Was Heinz right? Why or why not?
Here is the common sort of thinking at each stage:
Stage 1: Avoiding punishment
- Key concepts: authority, obedience, punishment
- Those at this stage: small children
Heinz was wrong: he will wind up in prison! Punishment is proof that it is wrong.
Stage 2: Self-interest
- Key concepts: fair deal, favours, What’s in it for me?
- Those at this stage: schoolchildren
Heinz was right: he wanted to save his wife. After all, she takes care of his children and maybe some day she will return the favour. Or: Maybe after a while he will see that going to prison to save his wife was a raw deal.
Stage 3: Good boy attitude
- Key concepts: motive, character, doing what society expects
- Those at this stage: anyone who lives only in a face-to-face world: early teens, people who live in small towns or tribes cut off from the rest of the world
Heinz was right: it is what any good husband would do! No judge with his head screwed on right would put him in prison. If anyone should go to prison it is that druggist!
Stage 4: Law and order morality
- Key concepts: law and order, duty to society
- Those at this stage: late teens, most people in large, faceless societies
Heinz was wrong: without respect for the law, society would fall apart!
Society has to somehow work even though most people do not know each other. You see moral action from the point of view of society as a whole,
Stage 5: Social contract
- Key concepts: rights, democracy, changing unjust laws, revolution
- Those at this stage: Jefferson, some in their middle twenties or later
Heinz was wrong but the judge should go easy on him. The druggist has a right to profit from his discovery, but the wife has a right to life.
You judge society against your own ideas of right and wrong. After all, societies can be well-run yet evil, like Nazi Germany and the Jim Crow South.
Stage 6: Principle
- Key concepts: duty to justice, civil disobedience
- Those at this stage: Gandhi, Martin Luther King. No one Kohlberg tested had clearly reached this stage!
Heinz was right. We have a duty to justice to break unjust laws.
– Abagond, 2011.
See also:
Interesting, however, I am always weary of classifying anything related to the human psyche as “universal” (especially when the person making such a claim is a white, wealthy, USian male). Often, developmental theories are steeped in Western philosophies and biases, which are then “tested” cross-culturally, without appreciating the various tangents that moral development may take across different societies.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good point Siah, I agree.
Another problem with the ‘stages’ is that I think reactions to moral questions are often very quick, emotional and intuitive. I immediately reacted “yes, he was right”, and then afterwards came up with a rationale to fit my emotional reaction. (This article is about a scientific study which suggests that moral decisions aren’t necessarily made by reasoning http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/01/1022/)
From stage 3 and beyond, do you think the later stages are ‘better’ than the earlier ones?
LikeLike
I agree here Sarah W
I too felt that his behaviour was justified and had already reasoned with myself that I would rectify this eventually by paying the man back and that by curing my wife, it would prove that his medication works – a win win situation.
LikeLike
You’re much kinder than me Demerera – I felt that the druggist was being so unreasonable that he deserved to have his medicine stolen!
I wonder if by that logic I ought to be stealing drugs from drug companies to give to people in developping countries.
LikeLike
OK, but what if instead of breaking in, Heinz kidnaps the druggist’s baby daughter and threatens to send her back in small pieces if the druggist does not give in to his demands? Drugs are never harmless and effective, so Heinz needs to acquire the druggist’s knowledge as well.
A stage 6 person works from principles, like justice and might consider those principles, like respecting another’s property, protecting those with special knowledge, or whatever, as more important than the life of Heinz’s wife. Suppose Heinz is trained killer, and the druggist a brave man likely to engage a burglar, who is likely to kill him. Suppose the druggist may know certain facts, which he has not noted down yet in an unambiguous way, which will mean that his death will mean that with the druggist’s life, hundreds, maybe thousands of lives are at stake. Equating a better excuse for your instincts with principled behaviour is not a sound measure of moral standards.
As the behavioural biologist I was trained to be, would say, Heinz has to gain great reproductive potential, which explains his behaviour as being as natural as breathing. As such we are wired to understand that, but a stage 6 person would need to know why the druggist wants to make money or the costs of the drug to the druggist expressed in other units than money. Giving the socially more acceptable answer is not always the most moral behaviour.
LikeLike
Sarah
I felt that the druggist was being so unreasonable that he deserved to have his medicine stolen!
LOL Sarah, just thinking of Karma here and the ‘two wrongs dont make a right’ element of things. I guess by paying him back I am hoping for some kind of redemption.
LikeLike
I think the whole theory is just a theory, In reality majority of us slide back and forth depending on issues and situations. As interesting as it is, it is just an academic exercise. Also, moral codes cast in stone tend to feed moralism, which is all together totally different thing.
LikeLike
@sam, that’s what I was thinking, moral reasoning for most people is context sensitive, and vulnerable to biases, me being me, I find sit ins at public buildings to protest discriminatory laws morally right, but shrink to level 4(ish) when asked about undocumented workers in this country. Certainly this is a subjective anecdote, but based on what I’m reading in the comments, most of abagonds followers have similar moral fluctuations
LikeLike
Exactly. That’s my main issue with this whole theory. I believe that philosophies, principles and morals, as well as how individuals in a given society live up to them, are what define a civilization and, eventually, makes each civilization unique. I don’t believe in universality in this matter.
If I were to establish a similar pyramid for my cultural background, I would probably end up with something quite different. For instance, I don’t understand why stage 1 and 2 should be mutually exclusive. Both (fear of punishment and unadulterated self-interest) sound like typical traits of small children to me.
I would also drop the pyramid structure (which implies both hierarchy and progression) for a tree structure which would reintroduce choice and individual character in the process.
In my experience, two of the key concepts of Kohlberg’s stage 3 (« character » and « doing what society expects ») are, often, mutually exclusive.
I would switch stage 3 & 4, that is put « good boy attitude » above « law and order morality ».
Etc, etc…
Regarding the Heinz dilemma.
I think Heinz was right to break into the shop and take the medicine. Because it was a life of death matter. Because charging $2000 for a medicine that one produce at a $200 cost is not reasonable. Because refusing to accept $1000 as an account AND get the rest latter, in such dramatic circumstance, is both a breach of the social contract and – more importantly – an inhuman attitude. Because a man who puts the respect of another’s property above the very life of his wife is a poor excuse for a man. I could go on…
LikeLike
Obviously I meant “Because it was a life or death matter.”
LikeLike
As well as Dr King or Gandhi, could Stage 6 (Principle) not also describe an Islamic terrorist, who commits violent acts because of his commitment to a particular principle? The problem is that principles of justice and morality are not universal.
So while stage 6 seems like the most advanced level of moral development, it is potentially very dangerous as well.
LikeLike
That’s another problem with this, it frames the discussion in terms of society and law and justice but doesn’t discuss how religion fits in. Especially when religious values (or perceived religious values in the case of extremists) are in conflict with society’s rules.
LikeLike
We should not also forget that according to this pyramid, the nazis were on the top and also the slave traders and owners, according to THEIR beliefsystem.
LikeLike
We had a discussion like this in my psychology class recently and it was a huge debate. Anyway, I reasoned about the situation on many levels, level 1, 3, 5 and 6.
When we had this discussion in class, I reasoned from the point of view of my belief in the bible. The parable of the king whose servant owed him ten thousand talents, and the king eventually freed him from the debt is almost similar to this scenario. Also, the civil laws of the Israelites in the Old Testament were not allowed to punish a man who stole food (to live), but, he was commanded to pay for whatever he stole.
I believe the druggist was most unmerciful and greedy. The man offered to pay the rest later and even if the man did not intend to pay him, a life is worth more than money. It is people’s God given right to break national laws if it defies righteous judgment and fundamental rights.
LikeLike
@green: That brings problems too. Al Qaida thinks they have God given right for their actions too.
LikeLike
This kohlberg fellow sounds like he has taken a page or two from a book from Garvey, stating that their are reasons for things as well as certain steps in the structure of the world, my problem with him and with most caucasoids in general is that they know of the problem but are too lazy to do anything about it, and as for nature the lazy in nature often find that they are constantly living on the edge and constantly having to do things at the last rather than them do them when they were suppose to be done, thus the financial crisis in america and europe, and as for any minorities living in those countries I can only hope for them a quick painless death,sorry to be so graphic but the truth the unbiased truth is just that, they will drag you down before they they or their own family will go down.
my youtube channel: xxphantommasterxx
LikeLike
@sam
I agree that we will believe or think we are right for our actions, using our religion and beliefs to defend our actions.
So then, the question should be, what people’s basic right/s is, what is justice and who decides?
LikeLike
Stage 6: Principle
Heinz was right. We have a duty to justice to break unjust laws.
No one Kohlberg tested had clearly reached this stage!
It’s, more or less, what I thought about this. Do I get a cookie?
But like others have already pointed out, principles can lead to bad, unproductive things, too. After all, who determines what’s unjust? One could argue that this was the main idea behind the September 11, for example.
LikeLike
Did you create the image for this post? I’d like to use it for a post I’m writing on atheism & morals, if that’s ok. I could find another version, but I like the simplicity of yours.
LikeLike
@ eavelectriclove
It is not mine. Like most of my images, I found it on Google Images or Tumblr somewhere.
LikeLike
Just a comment on the diagram. I’ve been teaching Kohlberg’s stages in a number of my classes for years. I think this diagram is very helpful. It resembles Maslow’s Hierarchy to which Kohlberg’s schema is comparable. But, more importantly, it graphically illustrates the decreasing number of people who utilize each stage of reasoning, narrowing as the stage increases. This is very helpful! Thank you !
LikeLike
[…] https://abagond.wordpress.com/2011/11/28/kohlbergs-stages-of-moral-development/ […]
LikeLike