Moral Development

How can we understand one’s morality? Moreover, how can we name a behavior or belief as a good or bad? Both Piaget and Kohlberg viewed moral development as a result of deliberate attempt to increase the coordination and integration of one’s orientation to the world (Kohlberg, L. 1963)[1]. However, Kohlberg additionally further developed Piaget’s notions. While, Piaget indicated that children aged 2 to 7 years, who are in the Preoperational Period, have difficulty in seeing points of view other than their own, Kohlberg showed that children aged between 2-7 are able to think through social systems perspective.

Kohlberg outlined three broad levels and six more specific stages of moral development. When he was trying to outline this developmental process, he applied a cross-sectional study and investigated an ethical dilemma. He sought answers to a story concerned a man named Heinz. His wife was dying of a disease that could be cured if he could get a certain medicine.  When he asked the pharmacist, he was told that he could get the medicine, but only at a very high price - one that Heinz could not possibly afford.  So the next evening, Heinz broke into the pharmacy and stole the drug to save his wife's life.  Was Heinz right or wrong to steal the drug? By studying the answers from children of different ages to these questions Kohlberg hoped to discover the ways in which moral reasoning changed as people grew. The sample comprised 72 Chicago boys aged 10–16 years, 58 of whom were followed up at three-yearly intervals for 20 years (Kohlberg, 1984)[2].

As a result, he found out individuals generally proceeds from a pre-conventional stage (selfish desires and avoiding punishment, to a conventional stage (social systems perspective) and finally to a post conventional stage (ethical principles, sense of justice, notion of most good to most number of people). Although, his findings were supported by many other researches, it has also been criticized for many reasons.

First of all, we have to consider the case of researching answers to ethical dilemmas. As long as, decisions may vary with the situation and our position in that situation, we would not be able to respond correctly to the questions of ethical problems since they are not authentic situations. It is possible to respond to the Heinz Dilemma through the lens of justice, if we are not experiencing the situation. However, it is highly probable to try everything we can do in order to save the one we love, if we are experiencing the situation. Then, how can we blame someone as displaying bad behavior or immature morality, if he/she just trying to save a human life. Or think about one having an abortion. Can we blame an individual, if it is not possible for her to raise her child because of life conditions, such as, welfare and economical situations?

Others have argued that Kohlberg's stages are culturally biased and it is based on Western philosophical traditions. This criticism may have merit. One wonders how well Kohlberg's stages apply to the great Eastern philosophies. One also wonders if his stages do justice to moral development in many traditional village cultures. Researchers find that villagers stop at stage 3, but perhaps they continue to develop moralities in directions that Kohlberg's stages fail to capture (W.C. Crain. 1985)[3].

Another criticism is that Kohlberg's theory is sex-biased. As a contrary to Kohlberg’s findings that women score lower than men, Gilligan has tried to show that women have their own insights of ethics in the form of care and responsibility rather than conventionally expected beliefs. In fact, women also continue to develop their thinking beyond stage 3, however, morality centers on interpersonal relationships and ethics of care instead of rights and rules for them.

Thus, it is true that there is a common progress in moral development; still we cannot think these stages as upgrading system. Further, we cannot discriminate one’s acts as right and wrong in such an ethical dilemmas like the Heinz’s Story. Therefore, we have to remember that we cannot judge one’s morality from a narrow perspective; we also have to consider social and personal aspects of morality.

References:

[1] Kohlberg, L. (1963).Kohlberg’s study helped researcher’s understand how and why children behave and act in certain ways when dealt with social dilemmas. The development of children's orientations toward a moral order: I. Sequence in the development of moral thought. Vita Humana, 6, 11-33.

[2] Kohlberg, L. (1984). Essays on moral development: Vol. 2. The psychology of moral development: Moral stages, their nature and validity.

[3] W.C. Crain. (1985). Theories of Development. Prentice-Hall. pp. 118-136., Chapter Seven, Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development