Lawrence Kohlberg's theory claims that our development of moral reasoning happens in six stages. The stages themselves are structured in three levels: pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional To understand this better, imagine a conflict at school There is a fight in the schoolyard, two ninth-graders are beating up Tom Those who watch the fight are at different stages of moral development Let's see what they do and how they justify their behavior At stage one, we make moral judgments based on obedience and punishment Finn's sense of good or bad is directly linked to whether he gets punished or not Finn sees what is happening to his friend and wants to help, but he doesn't because he is afraid the teacher may punish him if he gets caught fighting He asks himself, how can I avoid punishment? At stage two, we are motivated by self-interest Mary decides to intervene and help Tom She knows that she might get punished, but she also knows that she could become a victim herself someday If she helps Tom now, he might help her in the future She is asking herself: What's in it for me? At stage three, interpersonal accord and conformity guide our moral judgment Betty sees the fight and wants to intervene But when she realizes that all the others are just watching, she decides not to get involved She wants others to see that she is a good girl who is conforming with the ethics of the community She asks herself: What do others think of me? At stage four, we value authority and want to maintain social order When the teacher sees the group fighting he immediately steps in and shouts: Stop! Fighting at school is forbidden! He feels that, above all, it is important to follow the rules, otherwise chaos breaks out He feels it is his duty to uphold the rules that sustain a functioning society He asks himself: How can I maintain law and order? At stage five, we understand rules as a social contract as opposed to a strict order Jessie who watches from afar is not sure how she feels about this To her, rules make sense only if they serve the right purpose Obviously, the school rules prohibit fighting. But maybe Tom deserves to finally learn his lesson Just yesterday he punched a young girl from grade one She asks herself: Does a rule truly serve all members of the community? At stage six, we are guided by universal ethical principles All those involved now have to face the headmaster He first explains the school rules and why they exist He then clarifies that rules are valid only if they are grounded in justice The commitment to justice carries with it an obligation to disobey unjust rules The headmaster's highest moral principle is compassion He believes that all people should learn to understand each other's viewpoints and that they don't feel alone with their feelings He asks: What are the abstract ethical principles that serve my understandings of justice? At the pre-conventional level, Finn is driven by fear and Mary by self-interest Both judge what is right or wrong by the direct consequences they expect for themselves, and not by social norms This form of reasoning is common among children At the conventional level, Betty responds to peer pressure and the teacher follows the rules Their morality is centered around what society regards as right At this level, the fairness of rules is seldom questioned It is common to think like this during adolescence and adulthood At the post-conventional level, Jesse knows that things are complicated because individuals may disobey rules inconsistent with their own morality The headmaster follows a universal ethical idea at complete disconnect with what society thinks or the rules say To him, everything is solved through compassion The right behavior in his opinion is therefore never a means to an end, but always an end in itself Not every person reaches this level The American psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg based his work on Piaget's theory of cognitive development In order to confirm his theory of stages of moral development Kohlberg interviewed boys between the ages of 10 and 16 He analyzed how they would justify their decision when confronted with different hypothetical moral dilemmas We will now present to you the most famous moral dilemma Kohlberg presented to his students Let's see what you would do The Heinz dilemma: A woman was on her deathbed There was only one drug that the doctors thought might save her The druggist that made that particular medicine sold it for ten times the price of the production costs The sick woman's husband, Heinz, was poor and could not afford to buy the drug not even with the financial help of his friends Heinz then asked the pharmacist to sell it to him for half the price But he refused To save the life of his wife, Heinz broke into the man's laboratory and stole the medicine Now tell us: Should Heinz have stolen the drug? Would it change anything if Heinz didn't love his wife? What if the person dying was not his wife but a stranger? Should the police arrest the druggist for murder if the wife had died? Please write your answers and their justifications in the comments below If you like this video and the way we explain the subject subscribe to our channel We try to explain complex subjects in simple language and cartoons to support students all around the world in their learning If you want to support us, you can go to www.patreon.com/sprouts and donate Just $1 from many fans makes a big difference
