Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development
The below definitions have been adapted from Crain, W (1992). Theories of development: Concepts and applications, 3rd edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
Moral development is difficult to define. Children are taught very different cultural and family moral values through upbringing and life experiences, however a child’s ability to understand moral concepts varies like the developmental process. Crain (1992) believes that “the less children feel pressured to simply to conform to society, the freer they are to settle their own differences and formulate their own ideas” (p 142). However, not everyone reaches this state of moral being. It is important to note that Kohlberg’s stages are of moral thinking not moral action. This means that Kohlberg identified stages of thought and not the correlation between thought and action.
Level I: Preconventional Morality
· Stage 1 Obedience and Punishment Orientation: It is believed that authority must be obeyed. If rules are not followed punishment will ensue. The person does not speak as a member of society. If punishment is dealt something must have been done that was wrong.
· Stage 2 Individualism and Exchange: The person recognizes that there is not a single right or wrong view. Punishment is seen as a risk that one tries to avoid and there is a strong focus on fairness.
Level II: Conventional Morality
· Stage 3 Good Interpersonal Relationships: The person believes that s/he should live up to expectations and be “good”. Good behavior is based on having good motives and interpersonal feelings (love, empathy, trust, concern for others).
· Stage 4 Maintaining the Social Order: The person becomes more concerned with society as a whole rather than individuals. The person obeys laws to keep social order (required to do so) rather than solely based on ‘wrongness’.
Level III: Postconventional Morality
· Stage 5 Social Contract and Individual Rights: The person begins to ask, “what makes a good society”? The person understands the value of laws, but considers the justness of the laws themselves.
· Stage 6 Universal Principles: The concept of justice is believed and practiced. Justice ensures that individual rights and the dignity of others are respected. Everyone is entitled to be treated fairly and therefore justice is universal. At this level, the person supports laws that help all people, not ones that help some but hurt others. The principles of justice are a guide for which decisions are made.
Application of “The Heinz Dilemma” to Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development
(taken directly from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development)
A dilemma that Kohlberg used in his original research was the druggist's dilemma: Heinz Steals the Drug In Europe.
A woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to produce. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $ 1,000, which is half of what it cost. 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, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it." So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug for his wife. Should Heinz have broken into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?
From a theoretical point of view, it is not important what the participant thinks that Heinz should do. Kohlberg's theory holds that the justification the participant offers is what is significant, the form of their response. Below are some of many examples of possible arguments that belong to the six stages:
Stage one (obedience): Heinz should not steal the medicine because he will consequently be put in prison which will mean he is a bad person. Or: Heinz should steal the medicine because it is only worth $200 and not how much the druggist wanted for it; Heinz had even offered to pay for it and was not stealing anything else.
Stage two (self-interest): Heinz should steal the medicine because he will be much happier if he saves his wife, even if he will have to serve a prison sentence. Or: Heinz should not steal the medicine because prison is an awful place, and he would probably languish over a jail cell more than his wife's death.
Stage three (conformity): Heinz should steal the medicine because his wife expects it; he wants to be a good husband. Or: Heinz should not steal the drug because stealing is bad and he is not a criminal; he tried to do everything he could without breaking the law, you cannot blame him.
Stage four (law-and-order): Heinz should not steal the medicine because the law prohibits stealing, making it illegal. Or: Heinz should steal the drug for his wife but also take the prescribed punishment for the crime as well as paying the druggist what he is owed. Criminals cannot just run around without regard for the law; actions have consequences.
Stage five (human rights): Heinz should steal the medicine because everyone has a right to choose life, regardless of the law. Or: Heinz should not steal the medicine because the scientist has a right to fair compensation. Even if his wife is sick, it does not make his actions right.
Stage six (universal human ethics): Heinz should steal the medicine, because saving a human life is a more fundamental value than the property rights of another person. Or: Heinz should not steal the medicine, because others may need the medicine just as badly, and their lives are equally significant.
Ethical Dilemmas for Moral Development
(taken directly from http://www.goodcharacter.com/dilemma/dilemma.html -- see this site for more dilemmas)
THE SITUATION
(present this to your students)
Jeff and his best friend, Steven go to different high schools. They’ve been friends since third grade, but since Jeff transferred to another school for 10th grade, they’ve started to grow apart.
One Saturday, Steven asked Jeff if he would drive him into the nearest city. He didn’t have his license yet and said he thought it would be fun for them to hang out. Jeff felt uncomfortable saying yes because he’d only had his license for six months and his parents told him he wasn’t allowed to drive into the city yet. But, Steven said that he wouldn’t be able to go without Jeff’s help and they never got to see each other anymore. Jeff agreed and they left that afternoon after telling Jeff’s parents they were driving to another friend’s house.
When they got to the city, Steven asked Jeff to drive across town to a particular address. When they arrived, Steven asked Jeff to wait in the car while he ran inside for a few minutes. After Steven returned to the car Jeff asked what was going on and Steven pulled out a bag of white powder. He admitted it was his drug connection and that the powder was crystal meth. When Jeff asked him why he didn’t tell him that was why they came to the city. Steven said he didn’t tell him because he figured Jeff wouldn’t go.
That night Jeff couldn’t sleep because he felt overwhelmed by what he had found out. He knew meth was no good and that Steven would continue using it with or without his help. He was angry that Steven had put him in the position of driving with an illegal substance, but even more importantly, he was worried about his friend.
Jeff had promised Steven he wouldn’t tell anyone about all this but it was driving him crazy. He had a teacher at school he really liked and trusted. He wanted to go to him and ask his advice. But what if the teacher decided to turn in his best friend? Jeff was torn about how best to protect Steven.
NOTES FOR THE FACILITATOR
(this is for you)
This case brings to the surface one of the most important aspects of teenage-hood. No matter how good a job adults do communicating with teens, or how close teens are to their parents, teachers, or coaches, their most important loyalty and connection is to their peers. In order to exert influence on teens we need to work creatively and diligently because even if that influence from peers is negative it is still, at crucial times, more powerful than an adult’s. That is why a teenager could know that a friend is in terrible danger but still be hesitant to go to an adult and betray that friend’s trust. It is imperative that the teen in conflict be reminded, challenged, and encouraged to see the larger picture of what is important about being a friend and what it means, ethically, to care about someone.
The other idea this story emphasizes is that the only power we have is over ourselves. Teens often feel an overwhelming sense of responsibility and frequently don’t know what they are supposed to take on and what they aren’t. Jeff can’t control Steven but he can protect his relationship with his own parents and keep himself out of jail or harm’s way. Also, it is never a teenager’s responsibility to shoulder the knowledge that a friend could be in danger by him or herself. How would they feel if something terrible happened to their friend and they didn’t ask for help?
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
(also, debate topics, writing assignments, etc.)
· What do you think about what Steven asks of Jeff? Is it fair? What would you do if your friend asked you to do the same thing?
· What obstacles did Jeff face in telling Steven he would go to the city with him?
· Have you ever been in a position where you had trouble saying you didn’t want to do something with a friend? What obstacles did you face?
· What would you tell someone to do that was in the same position as Jeff?
· Do you think Jeff should talk to the teacher he respects? If not, should he talk to anyone else? If so, who?
· How do you think it would affect the friendship if Steven finds out that Jeff told an adult the situation?
· How do you think Jeff will feel if he doesn’t tell anyone and Steven overdoses on meth?
· How do you think Jeff will feel if he tells his teacher and the teacher tells him that he has to tell his own parents, or tell Steven to tell someone?
· How do you personally weigh the friendship against the fact that the friend is doing something illegal and potentially problematic?
· What do you do with those thoughts/feelings that can arise when you are doing something that you intuitively know is maybe not the best thing to be doing?
· The definition of dilemma is a difficult choice to be made between two equally undesirable alternatives. How do we decide? And, how do we choose to live with our choices? Have you ever been in a dilemma? What was it like and how did you deal with it?
THE SITUATION
(present this to your students)
Chris was just about to finish his sophomore year and felt like his whole world was crashing in around him. His mom was a recovering alcoholic and had been sober for three years . . . until now.
When Chris was in middle school his mom went through rehab. When she finally came home, Chris’s dad said he would leave her if she ever drank again. Everything seemed okay until his dad took a new job this year and had to travel a lot.
During that last few months, every time Chris’s dad left town his mom would drink. It was on the sly but Chris knew the signs. He saw the thermoses in the bathroom, the “water” bottles in her bedroom. It was like middle school all over again. It was like living in a nightmare.
The hardest part was trying to figure out what he was supposed to do. If he called her out on her drinking, his dad would probably leave all of them. If he didn’t do anything, something bad could happen to his mom. He was mad and hurt and lonely. He had friends he could talk to but what could they do? He felt like there wasn’t a single good choice to make.
What should Chris do?
NOTES FOR THE FACILITATOR
(this is for you)
This is a tough one for students to chew on. They might know the dangers of alcoholism as a disease. They probably know this problem is too big for Chris to handle but they have a hard time muddling through the emotions of the case to get to the bottom line. Some situations are not for teenagers to deal with -- they are for adults to deal with. No matter the outcome, this is not Chris’s responsibility. He needs to hand this dilemma over to someone else, an adult.
This case is really helpful to bring home the point to students that they can be incredibly mature, very wise, and STILL it is not their job to take care of their parents or any other adult. It is not their job. I feel like I have to say that sentence over and over and over again, even make my students repeat it out loud. They feel responsible for the people in their life and as teenagers they are beginning to define their own boundaries on how much power they have to affect change. Frequently, they fall under the false impression that they can save the people they care about or that they owe it to the important adults to “protect them”. They need help establishing the boundaries that come with growing responsibility.