Moral Development

The development of our moral reasoning and how we gain an understanding of right and wrong is a very interesting concept. The most prominent work in this area was performed by Lawrence Kohlberg and separated moral development into three main stages based on subjects’ justifications of a moral dilemma.

Subjects were asked this question: Mr. Heinz’s wife is dying. There is one drug that will save her life but it is very expensive. The druggist will not lower the price so that Mr. Heinz can buy it to save his wife’s life. What should he do? More importantly, why?

Kohlberg’s stages were well defined and generally progressed chronologically:

  1. Preconventional Morality
    1. Punishment and Obedience – Decisions based on immediate consequences
    2. Individualism, Instrumentalism, and Exchange – “You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours.”
  2. Conventional Morality
    1. Public Opinion – Conformity is important
    2. Law & Order – Duty and role
  3. Postconventional or Principled Morality
    1. Social Contract – The right thing to do is what people have agreed is the best thing for society
    2. Principled Conscience – Right and wrong are based on absolute values

Research supports Kohlberg’s stages. People begin at the first stage and move forward in order, rarely skipping a stage or moving backwards.

Can we really define our growth as humans so precisely? Can we predict someone’s decisions based on their age and if so, what does this tell us about our moral systems?

Note: I tried getting naked but I just couldn’t handle it.

5 Comments

  1. Oliver Zheng

    Apr 3, 03:24 PM

    I feel like this is exactly the same as my psychology class tutorial.

    In the Development section of psychology, growth is categorized into biological growth and mental growth, which is otherwise known as experiences. Our moral system is just an interpretation of the justificaction that’s hardwired into our brain.

    My professor’s got a good series of slides on this. http://www.psych.ubc.ca/~ara/Psych100/website%20lecture%20slides/

  2. Atul

    Apr 4, 08:53 AM

    If you ask me, this sounds like the purpose of every religion. Add to the moral code a fear of a higher power who can punish you in ways you can do nothing about, and it’s very compelling. Laws then follow from religion. The U.S. separates church and state, but our laws are based on Judeo-Christian values.

    I’m not an atheist, but a “more philosophical than religious Hindu” and I say that some people need religion to be good people while others do not. Many atheists have great morals.

  3. Thame

    Apr 4, 04:57 PM

    Thanks Oliver, that’s a nice set of slides there.

    Atul: I agree that the stages described do have some religious basis and although the study was performed in various cultures (with generally the same result), I have not been able to find any research done specifically on the development of children of atheist parents or of non-religious cultures. That might be interesting to look into.

  4. rabsteen

    Apr 9, 08:11 PM

    Strange, I came across this post after having just written on human action. I think the two are roughly connected.

    “Research supports Kohlberg’s stages.”

    The claim really rests on this assumption. I suspect that I would take issue with how he undertook such a study.

    As far as I understand, the three stages are forms of reasoning; i.e. the test as to whether someone fits level one would be if his justification for not stealing was fear of imprisonment or some such immediate thing. Consequently, Kohlberg is equating forms of reasoning with some equivalent notion of morality.

    But the fault with this kind of claim seems to be that he’s coming to a conclusion about morality without considering the content of the action of the actor. The only evaluation by which he understands morality is the form of the justification.

    Can we take him or any theory of morality seriously if it fails to take into consideration the actual content of people’s actions?

  5. Arron

    Mar 23, 02:44 PM

    But the fault with this kind of claim seems to be that he’s coming to a conclusion about morality without considering the content of the action of the actor. The only evaluation by which he understands morality is the form of the justification.

Leave a Comment

Comment