The first phase focuses on the children`s self-interest in their decision-making, as they try to avoid punishment at all costs. Regarding our example above, the man should not steal the drug from the pharmacy as he can go to jail if caught. At this stage, we observe how children begin to adopt the learned points of view, but also realize that there is more than one point of view for each question. Each person is different and therefore will have a unique perspective that suits their interests. Referring to our example above, they can argue that “he might think it`s right to take the drug, but the pharmacist wouldn`t.” The second step is highly dependent on the exchange of favors and can be summed up with the usual marketing slogan “What`s in it for me?” At this stage, children are not motivated by friendship or respect, but by the personal benefits that come with it. For example, if a parent asks their child to do a chore, the child may ask what the benefit would be for them. At this point, parents often recognize the “you`re scratching my back and I`m scratching yours” mindset and offer a reward, such as an allowance. Children in the third stage are usually preteens or young teens and have now adopted social norms as their own. While they believe that people in their communities should behave appropriately, they recognize that there is no simple solution to moral dilemmas. In Kohlberg`s study based on the example above, they agreed that he would have to steal the drug and “he was a good man because he wanted to save him.” They also argued that “his intentions were good to save the life of someone he loves.” Step 1: Orientation towards punishment and obedience. The physical consequences of action determine its goodness or wickedness, regardless of the human meaning or value of those consequences.
Avoiding punishment and unconditional respect for power are values in themselves, not in terms of respect for an underlying moral order supported by punishment and authority (the latter being level 4). In this phase, laws and social order prevail. Rules and regulations must be followed and followed. In the example above, the man should not steal the drug because it is against the law. Step 3: Interpersonal concordance or “good boy-nice girl” orientation. Are the concepts of “good boy” and/or “nice girl” observed in the same way in most or many cultural environments? Are there significant differences that have been noted in different cultural environments, times, places? Is “common sense” taken into account in a comparable way in different social contexts? Level 5: The legalistic orientation of the social contract (usually with utilitarian nuances). Just action tends to be defined in terms of general individual rights and standards that have been critically examined and accepted by society as a whole. There is a clear awareness of the relativism of personal values and opinions and emphasis is placed on consensus-building procedures.
In addition to what is constitutionally and democratically agreed, just action is a matter of personal values and opinions. This results in an emphasis on the “legal point of view”, but with an additional emphasis on the possibility of changing the law in terms of rational considerations of social benefits (rather than freezing it in relation to level 4 “law and order”). Outside the legal sphere, free agreement and contract are the binding element of the obligation. The “official” morality of the U.S. government and constitution is at this point. Step 3: Interpersonal concordance or “good boy-nice girl” orientation. Good behavior is what pleases or helps others and is approved by them. There are many similarities with stereotypical images of what is majority or “natural” behavior. Behavior is often judged by intention – “he has good intentions” becomes important for the first time.
You gain approval by being “nice.” Step 2: Instrumental relativistic orientation. Right action consists of instrumentally satisfying one`s own needs and sometimes the needs of others. Human relations are considered, among other things, in terms of the market. Elements of equity, reciprocity and equal sharing are present, but they are always interpreted physically, pragmatically. Reciprocity is about “you scratch my back and I scratch yours,” not loyalty, gratitude, or justice. Reaction #1: The husband should steal the drug because good husbands take care of their wives. Others would disapprove of him letting his wife die. This reaction is an example for an individual at what stage of moral development: similar to the first stage of Piaget`s theory, Kohlberg reflects on the moral thinking of children. At a young age, they believe that the rules should be followed, and those responsible will undoubtedly be punished. A child`s reasoning for the above example may include: “It`s bad to fly” or “It`s against the law,” without evaluating the perspective of the man whose wife is sick. Level four shows the moral development of a person within the framework of an entire society. Each person becomes more aware of the impact of each other`s actions on others and now focuses on their own role by following the rules and obeying the authorities.
While level three focuses on close relationships with family and friends, the fourth level seeks to maintain social order in the community. Referring to the example above, participants in the fourth stage would say that even if they understood why he wanted to steal the drugs, they could not support the idea of theft. The society cannot maintain order if its members decide to break the law even if they think they have a good reason to do so. This phase recognizes the introduction of abstract thinking when people try to explain certain behaviors. In our example above, the husband should steal the medicine for his wife because she is terminally ill and the laws do not take into account the circumstances. Stages 0, 1 and 2: Egocentric judgment, orientation of punishment and obedience, instrumental relativistic orientation: 4. Maintain authority and social order Orientation – at this stage of moral thought, the individual acts to maintain social order. “We have laws for a reason,” is this orientation, “to maintain order.” Jean Piaget introduced the idea of how moral development takes place in stages, with each level based on life experiences and active thinking. Lawrence Kohlberg promoted this idea by studying how moral thinking changes as we grow. How did people determine what was right or wrong? Following certain patterns of human behavior, Kohlberg organized the six stages into three levels of moral thought. Participants in his studies, including adults, adolescents and children, were asked to justify a dilemma.
One example Kohlberg used as a moral dilemma is this: this step recognizes the desire to be accepted into social groups, as well as how each person is affected by the outcome. Regarding our example above, the husband should take the medicine from the pharmacy in order to be a good partner for his wife. One of the most influential criticisms of Kohlberg`s theory is found in Carol Gilligan`s In a Different Voice (1982). Gilligan argues that Kohlberg`s rules-based conception of morality has a justice-oriented orientation that ties it to stereotypical thinking of men, while women and girls may be more likely to approach moral dilemmas with a “caregiving” orientation. An important question in moral theory raised by the Kohlberg-Gilligan debate is that of the role and meaning of moral feelings in the moral life. The Philosophy of Childhood, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Let`s take the moral dilemma and assign the individual answers to each of the six levels. Remember that the answer chosen does not reveal the stage of moral development. It is the explanation or reason for the solution that determines the identification of the step.
Here are six examples of reactions to the dilemma. See if you can align the reaction with the right stage of moral development. The moral dilemma. Kohlberg analyzed the reactions of his subjects to situations he called the moral dilemma. How a subject justified his reaction to one of his dilemmas defined that individual`s level of moral thinking – action was not the decisive moment, the reasoning behind the action was key. Consider, for example, the following moral dilemma used by Kohlberg in one of his most famous research efforts: Step 6: Universal orientation based on ethical principles. Law is defined by the decision of conscience in accordance with self-chosen ethical principles that appeal to logical completeness, universality and consistency. These principles are abstract and ethical (the golden rule, the categorical imperative); they are not concrete moral rules like the Ten Commandments.
These are essentially universal principles of justice, reciprocity and equality of human rights and respect for human dignity as individuals. Step 4: The “Policing” orientation. The individual is guided by authority, fixed rules and the maintenance of social order. Good behavior consists in doing one`s duty, respecting authority, and maintaining the social order given for oneself. The final step in Kohlberg`s theory is that moral thought is based on personal values. In the example above, it is acceptable for the husband to take the medicine without paying, because the objects or property are not as valuable as his wife`s life. In the first stage, children follow the rules learned and believe that what society says is right.