STAGES OF MORAL

DEVELOPMENT
Lawrence Kohlberg
 OBJECTIVES:
At the end of the lessons, the students should
be able to:
§ Differentiate the different levels and stages of
moral development.
§ Articulate the moral justifications for the
moral choice/decision for the presented moral
dilemmas.
The Theory of Moral Development is a
very interesting subject that stemmed
from Jean Piaget’s theory of moral
reasoning. Developed by psychologist
Lawrence Kohlberg, this theory made
us understand that morality starts from
the early childhood and can be affected
by several factors.
 Who is Lawrence Kohlberg?
• Lawrence Kohlberg is well-known
theorist to modern psychology.
Born in 1927 to a wealthy family,
Lawrence Kohlberg lived a modest
life.

• He studied psychology at the

University of Chicago in the late
1940s and 1950s, completing his
dissertation in 1958. His
dissertation outlined the theory
that he is now quite well-known
for: Kohlberg’s stages of moral
development.
§ He was the director of Harvard's Center for Moral
Education. His special area of interest is the moral
development of children - how they develop a sense of
right, wrong, and justice.

§ Kohlberg observed that growing children advance

through definite stages of moral development in a
manner similar to their progression through Piaget's
well-known stages of cognitive development.
 STAGES OF MORAL
DEVELOPMENT
✤ Level I: Pre-conventional Morality:
• Stage 1: Punishment-avoidance and obedience
• Stage 2: Instrumental Exchange

✤ Level II: Conventional Morality

• Stage 3: Interpersonal conformity
• Stage 4: Law and order (Societal conformity)

✤ Level III: Post-conventional Morality

• Stage 5: Prior rights and social contract
• Stage 6: Universal, Ethical principles
Level I: Pre-conventional
Morality:
qStage 1: Punishment-avoidance and
obedience:
"Might makes right."
§ Avoidance of physical punishment and
deference to power.
qStage 2: Instrumental Exchange:
self-interest
“The Egoist”
§ Marketplace exchange of favors or
blows. "You scratch my back, I'll
scratch yours." Justice is: "Do unto
others as they do unto you.
Level II: Conventional
Morality
qStage 3: Interpersonal (tribal)
Conformity:
“Good Boy/Good Girl”
§ A person acts to gain approval of
others. Good behavior is that which
pleases or helps others within the
group. One earns approval by
being conventionally "respectable"
and "nice."
qStage 4: Law and Order:
“The Good Citizen”
§ Respect for fixed rules, laws and
properly constituted authority.
Defense of the given social and
institutional order for its own sake.
Responsibility toward the welfare of
others in the society.
Level III: Post-conventional
Morality
qStage 5: Prior rights and the Social
Contract: “The Philosopher King”
§ Individual acts out of mutual obligation
and a sense of public good. Right action
tends to be defined in terms of general
individual rights, and in terms of
standards that have been critically
examined and agreed upon by the whole
society.
qStage 6: Universal Ethical
Principles:
“The Prophet/Messiah”
§ An individual who reaches this stage
acts out of universal principles based
upon the equality and worth of all
living beings. Persons are never
means to an end, but are ends in
themselves.
 APPLICATION OF
KOHLBERG’S THEORY IN
MORAL DILEMMAS
 Heinz Dilemma
• 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 make. 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 and tried every legal means, 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, having tried every legal means, Heinz gets desperate and
considers breaking into the man's store to steal the drug for
his wife.
1. Should Heinz steal the drug? Why or why not?
2. Is it actually right or wrong for him to steal the drug? Why is it
right or wrong?
3. Does Heinz have a duty or obligation to steal the drug? Why or
why not?
4. If Heinz doesn't love his wife, should he steal the drug for her?
Does it make a difference in what Heinz should do whether or
not he loves his wife? Why or why not?
5. Suppose the person dying is not his wife but a stranger. Should
Heinz steal the drug for the stranger? Why or why not?
6. Is it important for people to do everything they can to save
another's life? Why or why not?
7. It is against the law for Heinz to steal. Does that make it
morally wrong? Why or why not?
8. In general, should people try to do everything they can to obey
the law? Why or why not?
§ 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 more likely languish in a jail cell than over 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 has tried to do everything he can 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.
 Jose’s Dilemma
• Pao is a military doctor assigned in a war-torn village in
Maguindanao. He studied in a state university in the city
and was a consistent student leader during his college days.
He earned his degree through a scholarship sponsored by
Amnesty International. One night, soft knocks awakened
him. When he opened the door, a severely wounded man
asked for his help. He got serious gunshot wounds on his
right leg and left shoulder. He brought the wounded man in
his clinic, and while attending to him, the man fell
unconscious. Days passed and the man slowly recovered.
He introduced himself as Ka David, and admitted to him
his affiliation to the leftists. Ka David divulged his mission
to Dr. Pao in exchange of the latter’s promise not to turn
him over to military. Ka David’s mission is to penetrate the
town’s municipal hall and abduct the mayor.
• He explained that his mission was part of the plan to
charge and put into trial the mayor before the People’s
Court for crimes of corruption, illegal gambling, illegal
drugs, abuse of power, immorality, among others. He
got wounded in a crossfire but his identity remains
undisclosed to the military. Dr. Pao knew very well,
that the town’s mayor is the most corrupt official in the
province controlling illegal drugs, gambling dens, and
hoarding a horde of goons as his protectors. If Ka David
would succeed in abducting the mayor, the latter would
surely be summarily executed by the rebels. However,
as a military doctor, he has pledged to uphold the laws
of the land at all times and the plan to abduct and
execute the mayor by the organization of Ka David is a
clear violation of human rights, and transgression of the
Constitution.
1. Should Jose squeal the plan to the military? Why or why not?
2. Is it actually right or wrong to kill a bad person? Why is it right
or wrong?
3. Does Jose have a duty or obligation reveal the plans to his
superior? Why or why not?
4. If Jose is not involved in military, should he squeal the plan to
the authroity? Does it make a difference in what Jose should do
whether or not he his affiliated to militray? Why or why not?
5. Suppose the mayor is a relative of Dr. Jose. Should Jose reveal
the plan to the authority? Why or why not?
6. Suppose Ka David is a relative of Dr. Jose. Should Jose conceal
the plan to the authority? Why or why not?
7. Should we always uphold the truth, and the law?
8. In general, should people try to do everything they can to obey
the law? Why or why not?
 Lastly, for both dilemmas,
identify what stage of moral
development your answer
may be categorized.
Thank you