Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development

[rousseau]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development

Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development constitute an adaptation of a psychological theory originally conceived by the Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget. Kohlberg began work on this topic while a psychology graduate student at the University of Chicago[1] in 1958, and expanded upon the theory throughout his life.

The theory holds that moral reasoning, the basis for ethical behavior, has six identifiable developmental stages, each more adequate at responding to moral dilemmas than its predecessor.[2] Kohlberg followed the development of moral judgment far beyond the ages studied earlier by Piaget,[3] who also claimed that logic and morality develop through constructive stages.[2] Expanding on Piaget's work, Kohlberg determined that the process of moral development was principally concerned with justice, and that it continued throughout the individual's lifetime,[4] a notion that spawned dialogue on the philosophical implications of such research.[5][6]

The six stages of moral development are grouped into three levels of morality: pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional morality.

For his studies, Kohlberg relied on stories such as the Heinz dilemma, and was interested in how individuals would justify their actions if placed in similar moral dilemmas. He then analyzed the form of moral reasoning displayed, rather than its conclusion,[6] and classified it as belonging to one of six distinct stages.[7][8][9]

There have been critiques of the theory from several perspectives. Arguments include that it emphasizes justice to the exclusion of other moral values, such as caring;[10] that there is such an overlap between stages that they should more properly be regarded as separate domains; or that evaluations of the reasons for moral choices are mostly post hoc rationalizations (by both decision makers and psychologists) of essentially intuitive decisions.[11]

Nevertheless, an entirely new field within psychology was created as a direct result of Kohlberg's theory, and according to Haggbloom et al.'s study of the most eminent psychologists of the 20th century, Kohlberg was the 16th most frequently cited in introductory psychology textbooks throughout the century, as well as the 30th most eminent overall.[12]

Kohlberg's scale is about how people justify behaviors and his stages are not a method of ranking how moral someone's behavior is. There should, however, be a correlation between how someone scores on the scale and how they behave, and the general hypothesis is that moral behaviour is more responsible, consistent and predictable from people at higher levels.

I just learned of this theory recently. In a nutshell it's the idea that people's moral reasoning progresses as they age, and can usually be bracketed into a few categories. If you're familiar with it, what do you think of it?

Another aspect I found interesting is that Kohlberg figured that only a small percentage of people ever reach what he termed the 'post-conventional' stage.

To me there could be some interesting implications there, and this would go a long way in explaining much social stuff.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

An interesting theory, I've contemplated it off-and-on ever since I've first learned of it. Kohlberg believed there was a sixth stage, but was unable to prove it.

There may be something to this explaining social stuff, but I've never seen a study cross-correlating this to political and economic ideologies.

 

[rousseau]

An interesting theory, I've contemplated it off-and-on ever since I've first learned of it. Kohlberg believed there was a sixth stage, but was unable to prove it.

There may be something to this explaining social stuff, but I've never seen a study cross-correlating this to political and economic ideologies.

At first glance I'd think that in practice there is a lot more grey area there than meets the eye. Morality ultimately comes down to individual understanding and principles. But I could see people being roughly bracketed into pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional stages.

I'd probably re-phrase 'post-conventional' to something like 'transcendent', though. There is a small subset of people who are able to act in ways that might not actually be optimal for themselves, just because they hold certain principles as important. Where those in the conventional bracket are unable to read between the lines to build a moral framework that is based on their own principles. They just follow norms. The pre-conventional people haven't even figured out the rules yet.

I'd think that, very roughly, where someone lands would be highly dependent on their level of intelligence.

 

[lpetrich]

Here are those stages:

Pre-Conventional
- 1. Obedience and punishment
- 2. Self-interest
Conventional
- 3. Interpersonal accord and conformity
- 4. Authority and social order
Post-Conventional
- 5. Social contract
- 6. Universal principles

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

If you follow the Wikipedia link you eventually get to the question he used to determine a person's place on the stages of moral development, he used the Heinz dilemma.

The nice thing about the Wikipedia presentation of the Heinz dilemma is that it gives both a yes and a no for each of the six stages.

 Heinz dilemma

 

[WAB]

If you follow the Wikipedia link you eventually get to the question he used to determine a person's place on the stages of moral development, he used the Heinz dilemma.

The nice thing about the Wikipedia presentation of the Heinz dilemma is that it gives both a yes and a no for each of the six stages.

 Heinz dilemma

Sorry, but I don't see a dilemma.

Heinz should steal as much of the medicine he needs to save his wife's life, and worry about recompensing the druggist later. One must prioritize, and do it quickly, and act, quickly.

There's plenty of time, after the wife's life is saved, to dwell on how to pay back the druggist. Also, it is not a negligible concern that, yes, it might be possible that someone else might need this drug to save a person whom they love; but that, again, is only a potentiality, a possibility.

If Heinz is any kind of a rational man, and a man with even spark of courage, he steals the drug, saves his wife, and worries about the contingencies— LATER.

For me, there is no dilemma. You think, you decide, and you act, quickly, when a life is in the balance.

*

Try looking at what would be a real moral dilemma [albeit it's fiction], from a television show back in the 70's. From an episode of M.A.S.H. :

https://www.mash4077tv.com/2014/12/episode-spotlight-preventive-medicine/

This link is to a synopsis of the episode's plot, and the harsh moral dilemma Hawkeye faced, and the decision he made, which his friend, the other physician, BJ, berated him soundly for.

The Heinz dilemma is child's play in comparison.

 

[WAB]

Oh dammit. I think I flubbed again. I think the Heinz Dilemma was merely a means to demonstrate these six levels of moral growth, i.e. what any individual's moral dilemma might be at each stage in this development...

I hereby appeal to the High Court of Netville that I be drawn and quartered, and my bits roasted, then eaten with some nice broccoli and horseradish.

 

[rousseau]

If you follow the Wikipedia link you eventually get to the question he used to determine a person's place on the stages of moral development, he used the Heinz dilemma.

The nice thing about the Wikipedia presentation of the Heinz dilemma is that it gives both a yes and a no for each of the six stages.

 Heinz dilemma

Sounds like a rudimentary, although probably still useful measure. Which is not unexpected given the time the theory was developed.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I'm always skeptical when social sciences are involved, but that's because I work in the natural sciences. Physical sciences to be precise because there is less blood involved unless something goes terribly wrong.

This appears to be a case where there is a very blurry line between social science and philosophy. This blurring also concerns me.

Still, I would like to see further research into this. The sixth stage is not used by psychologists anymore as it was considered too theoretical and not found. Plus there is the issue of inconsistency as people do go up and down the scale at various times in their lives.

 

[fromderinside]

I keep asking myself why do I care about a theory developed by a person who admires Piaget theory, a theory based in part on one having permanent teeth before formal education begins?

 

[DolphinDynasty]

I think a lot of psychological theory, this being because I study the it, falls within logically generated generalities. Of course there are many that either overlap or hold consistently within several stages. I wonder, though, if he considered the starting point in relation to how individual moral principles have filtered in. It interests me more now than before as to if secular are individuals more adept in more stages, if not secular then what is that result?