Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development

At the end of the section the students are expected to be able to:
 Analyze the connection between moral psychology and ethics;
 Outline the levels and stages of moral development according to Kohlberg;
 Explain the characteristic moral reasoning of each stage;
 Examine the stage of moral development shown in different examples.
Overview:
Moral psychology in general helps in understanding the causes behind the differences and even
contradictions among people’s moral judgment. We may not agree with what other people think
and do, but at least we can understand why they do so; we may even empathize with them.
Kohlberg’s theory in particular states that a person’s conception of right and wrong is not static;
it changes over time. One’s moral judgment now reflects the person’s present stage of moral
development. It will probably change as one matures. Understanding the gradual change in
people’s way of thinking—understanding ourselves and others—can help clarify moral issues.

At the entrance to Apollo’s temple at Delphi in ancient Greece was an inscription that said:
“gnothi seauton”—know thyself. It inspired Greek philosophers to think that wisdom starts with
knowing oneself. It’s not about selfishness. Rather, the quest for self-improvement starts by a
realistic assessment of oneself. Moral opinions and decisions often reflect the person who makes
them. The more we understand the factors that influence our beliefs and actions the more we
would be able to improve them.
While ethics is concerned on the justification of human acts it does not always explain their
causes. Moral psychology provides that explanation in a descriptive, not prescriptive, manner.
One psychologist who studied moral consciousness was Lawrence Kohlberg. He conducted a
longitudinal study. His subjects were seventy two boys aged ten to sixteen years. He
interviewed them, telling stories such as the Heinz dilemma:

A dilemma is a situation in which one has to choose between two or more

possible actions, and have a moral justification for choosing it.

“…a woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug
that the doctors thought might save her…the druggist was charging ten times
 ($2,000) what the drug cost him to make …The sick woman’s husband, Heinz,
went to everyone he knew to borrow money, but he could get together only
$1,000. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it
cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said, ‘No…’ Desperate, Heinz
broke into the man’s tore to steal the drug for his wife.”i
Kohlberg asked questions like:
1. Should Heinz have stolen the drug?
2. Would it change anything if Heinz did not love his wife?
3. What if the person dying was a stranger, would it make any difference?
4. Should the police arrest the chemist for murder if the woman died?
His interest was not whether the subjects judged the action right or wrong but rather on their
reasoning. What mattered to Kohlberg was not the nature of a subject’s solution to the dilemma
but rather the basis—the logical premise—of the moral reasoning. ii Based on the findings he
made his theory: There are three levels in the moral development of a person. Each level
consists of two stages; in all, there are six stages. Moral development is a gradual process.
Level Characteristics Stage Emphasis
Pre- Maximizing personal satisfaction and 1 Reward and Punishment
conventional avoiding undesirable consequence 2 Mutual Benefit
Conventional Conformity to socially accepted 3 Approval by significant others
norms 4 Social Order
Post- Transcending social norms; personal 5 Social contract
conventional commitment to universal principles 6 Universal principles
At first glance Kohlberg’s rule-orientation readily becomes obvious. His scheme focuses on
conformity to rules, which seems ironic considering that of the three levels only one emphasizes
conformity. Kohlberg’s theory is rule-oriented because the point of reference is the conventional
level, the middle ground between the self-centered, uncritical pre-conventional stage and the
reflective, critical post-conventional level.
Pre-conventional
At the pre-conventional level an individual, usually but not necessarily a young child, judges
right and wrong based on the consequence of one’s action: right if the consequence is desirable,
wrong if the consequence is undesirable. Rules do not matter on their own; they matter only in
so far as they make the consequences of one’s actions predictable, if they help in producing the
desired result.
Stage 1: Right actions are those that produce reward; wrong actions are those result to some
punishment. The individual maximizes reward while minimizing punishment.
Possible answers to Heinz dilemma:
  If stealing the drug saves the wife’s life, especially, if the husband does not get caught
afterwards, then stealing is right.
 If the husband gets caught and the drug is recovered before it can be administered to the
wife—thus the husband is punished and the wife still dies—then stealing is wrong.
Stage 2: Before making a decision one asks, “What’s in it for me?” One starts to consider other
people more in decision-making and acts in mutually beneficial ways. At this stage one
cooperates with another for mutual benefit, may be willing to compromise some interest for
more over-all benefit. “Children (generally aged 7-11) tend not to consider the needs of the
other person unless they think it will benefit them to do so…’you scratch my back and I’ll
scratch yours.’”iii
Possible answers to Heinz dilemma:
 If the husband loves his wife’s that saving her life would be worth all the trouble he could
get into by stealing the drug, then stealing would be justifiable.
 Otherwise, if for the husband prolonging his wife’s life is not worth the possible
undesirable consequences of stealing, then stealing would be unjustifiable.
At the pre-conventional level an individual is not totally oblivious to rules; one is aware that
there are rules. But one’s interpretation of the rules and appreciation of their value are based on
the consequence to oneself in following them.
Conventional
At the conventional level an individual focuses more on socially accepted norms and becomes
less self-entered. According to Kohlberg, most adolescents are at this level.iv
Stage 3: One conforms to social norms to be praised as a “nice boy” or “nice girl.” Individual
blindly follows rules and tends to be inflexible. Conformity brings with it acceptance and a
sense of belongingness to the group.
Possible answers to the Heinz dilemma:
 If society deems stealing wrong, in spite of the circumstances, then as a good citizen the
husband must not steal the drug.
 Otherwise, if society deems it his obligation to save his wife’s life in spite of the
circumstances then he must steal the drug.
It is worth noting that the phrase “socially-accepted norms” is almost meaningless in a
heterogeneous society wherein aside from a dominant culture there are subcultures. Thus the
emphasis at Stage 3—“approval by significant others”—needs to be clarified. Its meaning varies
among different individuals. Given the traditional close family ties among Filipinos, many
might consider the family as one’s most “significant others.” Yet sometimes friends and others
associates could be as important, if not more. Especially among young people, peer pressure can
lead to behavior that even one’s family might not approve.
Stage 4: One still conforms to social norms, but for the sake of maintaining social order rather
than for acceptance. One may be willing to postpone personal gratification for the sake of the
“greatest good to the greatest number.”
Possible answer to the Heinz dilemma:
 Laws are made in order to maintain social order. If stealing were to be tolerated to save a
spouse then anyone could, and probably might, abuse the provision. Private interest
would threaten social order as the right to property could be violated at will. So, stealing
would be unjustified.
While conventional thinking and acting are, by themselves, neither right nor wrong they pose
serious problems. In our heterogeneous society there is not only one set of socially accepted
norms. There is not only one culture; there are many subcultures. As such, what is deemed
acceptable by one group may be frowned upon by another. One of the challenges among young
people is peer pressure. People in general—and the young in particular—desire for acceptance,
which may be acquired by being and acting according to group standards. But the demands of
one group may contradict with those of other group—or worse, one’s personal convictions and
values. In such case a young person, still struggling to find oneself and discover what he/she
really wants in life, is at a bind.
Post-conventional
At the post-conventional level one transcends the norms of one’s society and acts in spite of, not
because of, social norms. An individual values freedom more over blind conformity.
Stage 5: Rules are still important, but not for their own sake. Laws, for example, exist both to
protect individual rights and to serve collective interests. Thus, laws may be challenged and
changed relative to changing social conditions and to serve the needs of the people.
Possible answers to the Heinz dilemma:
 Laws must be made in such a way that would grant specific exceptions depending on
circumstances. In such case, the law prohibiting stealing must be re-interpreted to favor
human life over property. At least, if the husband steals the drug and gets caught later the
circumstance may be considered to mitigate punishment to be given to him.
 While the chemist deserves just compensation for the product of his work, the price is too
high to be just. Unbridled profiteering promotes greed which would not be beneficial to
society in the long run. Thus, the government must intervene and prescribe a price level
that would benefit both the chemist and those who need the drug, without maximizing the
benefit of one party at the expense of the other. That way Heinz would not have to steal.
Stage 6: A person’s decisions and actions are based on what the person finds to be universal
principles, not merely the norms set by one’s society. The person personally commits to abide
by those principles even if acting according to those principles would violate socially accepted
norms.
Possible answers to the Heinz dilemma:
  Human life is more valuable than property. Thus Heinz’s wife’s life trumps over the
chemist’s right to the profit he could get from the drug.
 Stealing is wrong, even if doing so would save a person’s life. (A similar view,
Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative, will be discussed later in another chapter.)
Summary
Being pre-conventional, both stages 1 and 2 do not seriously consider rules in moral reasoning.
They are different because while stage 1 considers only one’s satisfaction, stage 2 is
characterized by the willingness to compromise with others for mutual benefit.
Both stages 2 and 3 consider other people, aside from oneself, in moral reasoning. Yet they
differ in that stage 3—being at the conventional level—judges right from wrong based on rules;
stage two does not.
Being conventional, stages 3 and 4 base their moral reasoning on rules. They differ in that stage
3 tends to follow rules blindly for the sake of acceptance while stage 4 is more flexible and
allows changing the rules as needed in the situation to maintain social order.
Both stages 4 and 5 are characterized by society-oriented moral reasoning. But while stage 4
makes rule-based judgment, stage 5 depends less on rules. Stage 4 presupposes that rules
maintain social order. At stage 5 one is aware that while rules might be intended to benefit
society, they do not always serve that purpose. When rules do not benefit society in general or
some individual members in particular, one has to decide in spite—not because—of rules.
Stages 5 and 6 are characterized by moral reasoning that transcend—independent of—social
norms. They differ in that stage 5 tends to be situational and utilitarian while stage 6 makes
judgment based on universal principles.

Psychology comes from two Greek words: psyche () which means soul or mind, and
logos) or logia ) which means study of. Though attempts to understand how the mind
works has a long history, psychology was only established in the 20 th century as an offshoot from two
unlikely disciplines: philosophy and physiology.

Suggested Reading: “How Group-Think Makes Killers”v

Exercise: The Stag Hunt
The following is a slightly modified version of a situation described by political theorist
Jean-Jacques Rousseauvi:
Two individuals go out on a hunt. Each one may choose to hunt either a stag or a rabbit. On the
one hand, each hunter can successfully hunt a rabbit by oneself, but a rabbit is worth less than a
stag. On the other, successfully hunting a stag would require the other hunter’s cooperation.
The two hunters agree to cooperate to hunt a stag.
While waiting for a stag, hunter A sees a rabbit within range. If hunter A shoots it then he would
most likely get it. But if in case there is a stag nearby, out of hunter A’s vision at the time, it
would be driven away by the sound of a gunshot—defeating the agreement of cooperation.
1. If you were hunter A, would you abide by the prior agreement with the other hunter to
hunt stag (less probable but more valuable) and miss out on the opportunity to hunt a
rabbit (more probable but less valuable)? Why?
2. Identify the stage of moral development that you think best reflects your choice and
explain.
i
Halonen, Jane S. and John W. Santrock. Psychology: Contexts and Applications, 3rd ed. (Boston: McGraw-Hill, 1999), 301
ii
Owens, Karen B. Child and Adolescent Development: An Integrated Approach. (California: Wadsworth, 2006), 474
iii
Ibid, 475
iv
Ibid, 591
v
Simon, Bernd. “How Group-Think Makes Killers.” Scientific American Mind volume 14 number 5 (2004): 22-27
(A copy of the article in pdf format is available online.)
vi
The original version, with its various implications, can be found in:
Skyrms, Brian. The Stag Hunt and the Evolution of Social Structure. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 2004