Running head: MORAL DEVELOPMENT THEORY 1

Kohlbergs Moral Development Theory

Hannah Maier

Concordia University Ann Arbor

SPA 502
MORAL DEVELOPMENT THEORY 2

The concept of moral development has been studied for many years by multiple theorists

such as Freud (1992), Durkheim (1906), Piaget (1932), and Baldwin (1906, as cited by

Kohlberg, 2008). Kohlbergs study (2008) aimed to isolate the stages of moral development and

the thought processes behind them. He used two-hour interviews, with ten hypothetical moral

dilemmas relating to a choice between an obedience-serving act versus a need-serving act, to

study the thought processes behind decisions made by children. The childrens answers were

then sorted into three levels - two stages each - of morality based on 30 aspects of morality,

which they spoke about in their interviews.

The first level is known as pre-moral. During the pre-moral level, children based their

definitions of write and wrong on terms of punishment and compliance to authority figures. The

first stage, known as punishment and obedience orientation, is motived by avoiding punishment.

These children exhibited obedience to the hypothetical authority figure with no concept of right

(Kohlberg, 1963). They defined good and bad as a simple classification between reward and

punishment. For example a child faced with a moral conflict between a brother and father, chose

based on which one he thought would retaliate more heavily (Kohlbery, 2008). An easy way to

remember the rational behind this stage is that any action leading to punishment must be wrong.

Similarly, stage twos decisions are based on the thought process of action leading to a

reward must be right. This stage is known as nave instrumental hedonism, or self-satisfaction.

Motivation is based on reward. The childrens concept of rights involved ownership of

themselves and their belongings, including power over possessions, regardless of conflict with

the right rights of others. Need-related consequences are acceptable. This was demonstrated by

one students answer to the moral dilemma of a sick persons right to end their life (Kohlberg,

2008). The child believed it was acceptable for a patient to request his doctor for an overdose,
MORAL DEVELOPMENT THEORY 3

even if it is against the law. His reason was, It should be up to her; its her life. Its the persons

life, not the laws life.

The second level, morality of conventional role-conformity, moves from punishment- and

reward-based decisions to making choices based on the concept of a morally good person.

There is a higher sensitivity to anticipated approval or disapproval, along with an association for

authority and its goals. Avoiding disapproval by others motivated these children, specifically in

the familistic motivated children in stage three, which is called the good boy morality of

maintaining good relations and approval by others. Similar to stage two, the participants believed

that people had a right to do whatever they desired with their possessions, with the exception that

no one had a right to do evil. Stage four moves away from children believing people have the

right to do what pleases them to believing a right is an earned claim. Children in this fourth stage

were motivated by avoidance of disapproval from authorities and guilty feelings. Differing

explanations by two children of why it is wrong to steal from a store offer a distinction between

these two stages. One child said it was wrong to steal, as the store owner would then think that

the thief came from a bad family, with no care for his or her actions. The second child said it

would be wrong to steal the results of the store owners hard work (Kohlberg, 2008). Although

both children empathized with the store owner when evaluating the situation, their reasoning was

distinctly different. The first child, who was in stage three, based his decision on the good or

natural self; the second child, in stage four, based his decision on rights and rules.

The third and final level, morality of self-accepted moral principles, is defined by a

persons ability to accept the possibility of conflict between norms, as well as their attempt at

rational decision-making. Stage five, known as morality of contact and of democratically

accepted law, acknowledges that there may be a difference between what is right for a person and
MORAL DEVELOPMENT THEORY 4

what is right according to the law. The motivation in this stage is community respect and

disrespect. The decisions made rely mainly on the law to decipher what is right and wrong, but

acknowledge the possibility of a conflict between the law and what is right for an individual

person. The famous Heinz dilemma is an excellent illustration. The person asked would decided

that Heinz should steal the drug, but that he will also have to accept the punishment for stealing.

The alternative to this ending comes from the stage six, morality of individual principles of

conscience. In this stage, the person would decide that Heinz should steal the drug and not be

punished for saving his wifes life. This sixth stage is motivated by self-condemnation

(Kohlberg, 2008). It acknowledges the rights in stage five and further respects individual life.

Moral decisions tend to be chosen in terms of moral principle, such as the golden rule: greatest

good for the greatest number.

All these stages represent the organization of moral order. Morality, the result of a

developmental process, cannot simply be taught. The stages do not build on one another; they

replace the previous models of thought. Each stage is a prerequisite for the next and must be

fully reached before an individual can move onto the next. However, Kohlbergs study was a

cross sectional study including only male children. This limits the generalization of his research.

Further study of moral development should use a mixed gender sample and use a longitudinal

design to see how each student develops over time.

MORAL DEVELOPMENT THEORY 5

References

Kohlberg, L. (2008). The development of children's orientations toward a moral order. Human

Development, 51(1), 8-20. doi: 10.1159/000112530