Moral Development

[Hey Bubu]

Interesting reading, thought I would share it.



Lawrence Kohlberg's (1969)

Moral Stages:
Level 1
Preconventional (Stages 1 & 2) Individual Perspective "Obey Rules to avoid Punishement

Level 2
Conventional (Stages 3 & 4) Member of Society Perspective "Recognize and follow laws and rules"

Level 3
Postconventional (Stages 5 & 6) Prior to Society Perspective "Follow Self Chosen Ethical Perspective"


Kohlberg's six stages of moral development are subdivided by three exclusive levels. The first level, the "preconventional level" is where the individual is concerned with his or her immediate interests and does not yet understand the rules and expectations of society. In the second level, the "conventional
level", people recognize societal laws, rules, and expectations. The third level, the "postconventional" level, is represented by people who accept society's rules only if they agree with the moral foundation that the rules are based upon. Generally, children under the age of nine appear in level I, adolescents and most adults hit their plateau in level II, and only a small percentage of people ever reach the third level of moral development

Kohlberg's model of moral development asserts that individuals pass sequentially through one or more different stages as they morally develop. each stage reflects a level of moral maturity and Kohlberg contends that ethical behavior can be understood by identifying an individual's relative position on the scale.

The extensive research that has been performed on Kohlberg's model at the international level adds to the understanding of other factors that may amplify an individual's growth through the moral development stages. A longitudinal study of moral judgment in Turkey supported Kohlberg's universalism claim and concluded that the six moral stages did not vary between cultures (Nisan and Kohlberg, 1982). However, it was found that people from villages morally developed at a slower rate than people from the city. While the stages appeared to be the same in both locations, the city dwellers moved more quickly through the stages. Kohlberg credits this interesting difference to the varying cultural surroundings that village and city residents face. Studies by Kohlberg and his research colleagues in countries such as Kenya, Honduras, and India had similar findings (Kohlberg, 1984).

Source

Kohlberg had some really nice thoughts. Sadly, not too many people make it to Stage 6.

[[aNNa]]

i think there is a distinct difference between
an individual who acts IN ACCORDANCE with duty
and an individual who acts FROM duty.

because we must consider if an individual who
acts only in accordance with duty truly is moral.

let me give an example to illustrate my
point and then i will tie it in to the discussion.

to act IN ACCORDANCE with duty is simply to
do the right thing only after having considered
the various consequences that could/will ensue.

ex: a young boy walks into a corner store to
buy milk for his mother. she gives him $10 to
buy the milk. the little boy picks up a carton
of milk for $2.50 and gives it to the woman
at the register. now, this woman sees that
the young boy wouldn't notice the difference
between the correct amount of change or the
wrong amount. she could very well short change
the boy. should she? what is the right thing
to do here?

she looks up at the surveillance camera in the
store and wonders.. 'what if someone sees me?'
she wonders what will happen if the mother
receives the incorrect change.. 'what if she comes
back to the store to confront me?'
finally the woman thinks better of short changing
the boy and gives him the correct amount of change.

this is acting IN ACCORDANCE with duty. she did the
right thing because she was afraid of the consequences.

action FROM duty is different,because to act FROM duty is to
do the right thing regardless of the consequences of
not doing so. to act from duty is to do the right thing
BECAUSE it is the right thing to do.. NOT because one might
get caught. therefore, if the woman had given the boy
his correct change because she felt it was the right thing
to do.. and NOT because she had weighed her options
and decided she couldn't get away with it, that would
indicate where her true morality lied.

having said that [and getting back to the original
discussion] i believe that the problem with those
stages is the first one. " obeying the rules to avoid punishment ".
the expectations of society have nothing to do
with whether or not something is right or wrong.
neither the expectations of society NOR the laws
should be the catalyst that compels an individual
to do the right thing. such things compel a person
to act IN ACCORDANCE with duty rather than from it.

as i stated in my second paragraph, i think that an individual
who acts only in accordance with duty [ex: does the right thing only because there are laws preventing him/her from doing
otherwise] could very well be morally suspect. for if there were
no laws to prohibit wrongful acts, could we then depend
on such individuals to continue to do the right thing?
probably not.

so, if achieving Stages 5&6 is contingent upon Stages 1&2
then there is a problem in my opinion.

[[aNNa]]

by the way, i am not saying that laws are useless
and unnecessary. i am not saying that at all.

however i am saying that it is a pity that we must
act in accordance with duty in order to act from duty.

i think it is possible to achieve Stages 5/6 in other ways.

[Hey Bubu]

Originally posted by [aNNa]

so, if achieving Stages 5&6 is contingent upon Stages 1&2
then there is a problem in my opinion.

Really good point and while I don't think that a person has to go through stage 1&2 to get to 5 & 6, it does
represent a broad view of what some people might go through. Also worth noting, at least from what I was reading, there are no implied
age as to when a person goes through this stages. Kind of interesting.

Simplest example I can think off right now. Imagine if you will a young child, around five years old, the kids mom tells him/her not to eat any cookies before dinner. This child will follow the rules in order not to be punished. It is not necessarily wrong per say for him/her to eat a cookie, except for the fact that he may ruin his appetite, but the ground rules were set up by his parents so that he/she does not do so.

As the child becomes more aware of the situations and the environment around him/her, the understanding of said rules will become clearer.

Later on wether he/she chooses to follow them is up to his/her perogative (stage 6 maybe?)

[[aNNa]]

Originally posted by TypeH
Really good point and while I don't think that a person has to go through stage 1&2 to get to 5 & 6, it does
represent a broad view of what some people might go through. Also worth noting, at least from what I was reading, there are no implied
age as to when a person goes through this stages. Kind of interesting.

Simplest example I can think off right now. Imagine if you will a young child, around five years old, the kids mom tells him/her not to eat any cookies before dinner. This child will follow the rules in order not to be punished. It is not necessarily wrong per say for him/her to eat a cookie, except for the fact that he may ruin his appetite, but the ground rules were set up by his parents so that he/she does not do so.

As the child becomes more aware of the situations and the environment around him/her, the understanding of said rules will become clearer.

Later on wether he/she chooses to follow them is up to his/her perogative (stage 6 maybe?)

you are absolutely right.
the example you gave helped me to see where
you are coming from, and what you said is plausible.
stages 1-4 may not be necessary to attain the knowledge
that comes from arriving at stages 5-6. nevertheless,
many individuals/societies go through a process similiar
to that which was described previously.

i realize that it is simply a path to a 'greater understanding'.
i just believe that there are several paths that can be
taken to arrive at steps 5/6. undoubtedly, Mr. Kohlberg has highlighted one of them.

good response. ;P

[Hey Bubu]

Arigato Gosaimasu (sp?)


I think one of the problems of just about any society when it comes to rules and ethics and the way the world should be, is the
fact that often people believe that there is only one way to do things. I'm studying the ethical differences in the business world, when in respect to cultural and geographical upbringing. International business relations is really cool, but very complex.

[[aNNa]]

Originally posted by TypeH
Arigato Gosaimasu (sp?)


I think one of the problems of just about any society when it comes to rules and ethics and the way the world should be, is the
fact that often people believe that there is only one way to do things. I'm studying the ethical differences in the business world, when in respect to cultural and geographical upbringing. International business relations is really cool, but very complex.

right. one way to do things or rather, one way to
think about things. not everything is black and white.
ahh business ethics. i want to take a class in that.
the fact that you've taken an interest in the subject
is very cool.

[Hey Bubu]

Originally posted by [aNNa]


right. one way to do things or rather, one way to
think about things. not everything is black and white.
ahh business ethics. i want to take a class in that.
the fact that you've taken an interest in the subject
is very cool.

Well eventually, further down my career (not too far I hope) I want to get involved in international marketing and advertising.
Plus I like "looking" at people. Like you said people often think that there is a black and white, but life is full of gray areas.
Of interest to read about is the development of ethics between third world countries and differences between individualistic and Collectivistic societies.