Hjahari, Ayyesha D.

BECED 1C

STAGES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT

Lesson 10

Introduction

Ever wondered why you used to do things that you no longer do now? For instance,
when you were kids, you used to always tell the truth when asked or obey your parents
because of fear of punishment. Now, you are willing to commit “white lies” if it involves
protecting a friend or loved one. Why is this so? Kohlberg’s Moral Stages of Development
could be the answer. Read more to learn about it.

Objectives

At the end of this lesson, you should be able to:

1. Identify and articulate each stage of moral development

2. Check their personal growth, and three other cases, against the stages of moral
development

Try this!

Read and understand the dilemma.

The Heinz dilemma is a frequently used example in many ethics and morality classes. One well-
known version of the dilemma, used in Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development, is
stated as follows[1]:
A woman was on her deathbed. 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 laboratory to
steal the drug for his wife.

Source: Wikipedia

Think ahead!

Should Heinz have broken into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?

No, Heinz shouldn’t broke into the laboratory to steal drug for his wife, because, it’s not a
good idea. There’s a lot of way to make money. For instance, he can look for a part time
job or he can sell all the unused stuff to be able provide the drugs needed. Stealing is not an
option for him to get this drugs. He could be put in a jail and prison sentence.

Read and Ponder

Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development

Kolhberg’s theory of moral development states that we progress through three levels of moral
thinking that build on our cognitive development.

LEARNING OBJECTIVE

 Summarize Kohlberg’s stages of psychosocial development

KEY POINTS

o Lawrence Kohlberg expanded on the earlier work of cognitive theorist Jean

Piaget to explain the moral development of children, which he believed follows a
series of stages.
o Kohlberg defined three levels of moral development: preconventional,
conventional, and postconventional. Each level has two distinct stages.
o During the preconventional level, a child’s sense of morality is externally
controlled. Children accept and believe the rules of authority figures, such as
parents and teachers, and they judge an action based on its consequences.
o During the conventional level, an individual’s sense of morality is tied to personal
and societal relationships. Children continue to accept the rules of authority figures,
but this is now because they believe that this is necessary to ensure positive
relationships and societal order.
o During the postconventional level, a person’s sense of morality is defined in terms
of more abstract principles and values. People now believe that some laws are
unjust and should be changed or eliminated.
o Kohlberg’s theory has been criticized for its cultural and gendered bias toward
white, upper-class men and boys. It also fails to account for inconsistencies within
moral judgments.

TERM

 moralityRecognition of the distinction between good and evil or between right and
wrong; respect for and obedience to the rules of right conduct; the mental disposition or
characteristic of behaving in a manner intended to produce good results.
FULL TEXT

Lawrence Kohlberg expanded on the earlier work of cognitive theorist Jean Piaget to explain the
moral development of children. Kohlberg believed that moral development, like cognitive
development, follows a series of stages. He used the idea of moral dilemmas—stories that
present conflicting ideas about two moral values—to teach 10 to 16 year-old boys about morality
and values. The best known moral dilemma created by Kohlberg is the “Heinz” dilemma, which
discusses the idea of obeying the law versus saving a life. Kohlberg emphasized that it is the way
an individual reasons  about a dilemma that determines positive moral development.

After presenting people with various moral dilemmas, Kohlberg reviewed people’s responses
and placed them in different stages of moral reasoning. According to Kohlberg, an individual
progresses from the capacity for pre-conventional morality (before age 9) to the capacity for
conventional morality (early adolescence), and toward attaining post-conventional morality
(once Piaget’s idea of formal operational thought is attained), which only a few fully achieve.
Each level of morality contains two stages, which provide the basis for moral development in
various contexts.

Kohlberg’s stages of moral development

Kohlberg identified three levels of moral reasoning: pre-conventional, conventional, and post-
conventional. Each level is associated with increasingly complex stages of moral development.

Level 1: Preconventional

Throughout the preconventional level, a child’s sense of morality is externally controlled.

Children accept and believe the rules of authority figures, such as parents and teachers.  A child
with pre-conventional morality has not yet adopted or internalized society’s conventions
regarding what is right or wrong, but instead focuses largely on external consequences that
certain actions may bring.

Stage 1: Obedience-and-Punishment Orientation

Stage 1 focuses on the child’s desire to obey rules and avoid being punished. For example, an
action is perceived as morally wrong because the perpetrator is punished; the worse the
punishment for the act is, the more “bad” the act is perceived to be.

Stage 2: Instrumental Orientation

Stage 2 expresses the “what’s in it for me?” position, in which right behavior is defined by
whatever the individual believes to be in their best interest. Stage two reasoning shows a limited
interest in the needs of others, only to the point where it might further the individual’s own
interests. As a result, concern for others is not based on loyalty or intrinsic respect, but rather a
“you scratch my back, and I’ll scratch yours” mentality. An example would be when a child is
asked by his parents to do a chore. The child asks “what’s in it for me?” and the parents offer the
child an incentive by giving him an allowance.

Level 2: Conventional

Throughout the conventional level, a child’s sense of morality is tied to personal and societal
relationships. Children continue to accept the rules of authority figures, but this is now due to
their belief that this is necessary to ensure positive relationships and societal order. Adherence to
rules and conventions is somewhat rigid during these stages, and a rule’s appropriateness or
fairness is seldom questioned.

Stage 3: Good Boy, Nice Girl Orientation

In stage 3, children want the approval of others and act in ways to avoid disapproval. Emphasis
is placed on good behavior and people being “nice” to others.

Stage 4: Law-and-Order Orientation

In stage 4, the child blindly accepts rules and convention because of their importance in
maintaining a functioning society. Rules are seen as being the same for everyone, and obeying
rules by doing what one is “supposed” to do is seen as valuable and important. Moral reasoning
in stage four is beyond the need for individual approval exhibited in stage three. If one person
violates a law, perhaps everyone would—thus there is an obligation and a duty to uphold laws
and rules. Most active members of society remain at stage four, where morality is still
predominantly dictated by an outside force.

Level 3: Postconventional

Throughout the postconventional level, a person’s sense of morality is defined in terms of more
abstract principles and values. People now believe that some laws are unjust and should be
changed or eliminated. This level is marked by a growing realization that individuals are separate
entities from society and that individuals may disobey rules inconsistent with their own
principles. Post-conventional moralists live by their own ethical principles—principles that
typically include such basic human rights as life, liberty, and justice—and view rules as useful
but changeable mechanisms, rather than absolute dictates that must be obeyed without question.
Because post-conventional individuals elevate their own moral evaluation of a situation over
social conventions, their behavior, especially at stage six, can sometimes be confused with that
of those at the pre-conventional level. Some theorists have speculated that many people may
never reach this level of abstract moral reasoning.
Stage 5: Social-Contract Orientation

In stage 5, the world is viewed as holding different opinions, rights, and values. Such
perspectives should be mutually respected as unique to each person or community. Laws are
regarded as social contracts rather than rigid edicts. Those that do not promote the general
welfare should be changed when necessary to meet the greatest good for the greatest number of
people. This is achieved through majority decision and inevitable compromise. Democratic
government is theoretically based on stage five reasoning.

Stage 6: Universal-Ethical-Principal Orientation

In stage 6, moral reasoning is based on abstract reasoning using universal ethical principles.
Generally, the chosen principles are abstract rather than concrete and focus on ideas such as
equality, dignity, or respect. Laws are valid only insofar as they are grounded in justice, and a
commitment to justice carries with it an obligation to disobey unjust laws. People choose the
ethical principles they want to follow, and if they violate those principles, they feel guilty. In this
way, the individual acts because it is morally right to do so (and not because he or she wants to
avoid punishment), it is in their best interest, it is expected, it is legal, or it is previously agreed
upon. Although Kohlberg insisted that stage six exists, he found it difficult to identify individuals
who consistently operated at that level.

Critiques Of Kohlberg’s Theory

Kohlberg has been criticized for his assertion that women seem to be deficient in their moral
reasoning abilities when compared to men. Carol Gilligan (1982), a research assistant of
Kohlberg, criticized her former mentor’s theory because it was based so narrowly on research
using white, upper-class men and boys. She argued that women are not deficient in their moral
reasoning and instead proposed that males and females reason differently: girls and women focus
more on staying connected and maintaining interpersonal relationships.

Kohlberg’s theory has been criticized for emphasizing justice to the exclusion of other values,
with the result that it may not adequately address the arguments of those who value other moral
aspects of actions. Similarly, critics argue that Kohlberg’s stages are culturally biased—that the
highest stages in particular reflect a westernized ideal of justice based on individualistic thought.
This is biased against those that live in non-Western societies that place less emphasis on
individualism.

Another criticism of Kohlberg’s theory is that people frequently demonstrate significant

inconsistency in their moral judgements. This often occurs in moral dilemmas involving drinking
and driving or business situations where participants have been shown to reason at a lower
developmental stage, typically using more self-interest driven reasoning (i.e., stage two) than
authority and social order obedience driven reasoning (i.e., stage four). Critics argue that
Kohlberg’s theory cannot account for such inconsistencies.
Source: https://courses.lumenlearning.com/teachereducationx92x1/chapter/kohlbergs-stages-of-
moral-development/

With regards to the dilemma stated above, 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:

Heinz should steal the Heinz should not steal the

# Level Stage
drug, because drug, because

It is only worth $200 and not

how much the druggist
He will consequently be put
wanted for it; Heinz had
Obedience in prison which will mean he
even offered to pay for it
is a bad person.
and was not stealing
Pre- anything else.
1
Conventional

He will be much happier if Prison is an awful place, and

he saves his wife, even if he he would more likely
Self-interest
has to serve a prison languish in a jail cell than
sentence. over his wife's death.

Stealing is bad and he is not

His wife expects it; he wants
Conformity
to be a good husband.
a criminal; he has tried to do
everything he can without
breaking the law, you cannot
blame him.

His wife will benefit, but he

2 Conventional should also take the
prescribed punishment for
the crime as well as paying
Law-and- the druggist what he is
The law prohibits stealing.
order owed.
Criminals cannot just run
around without regard for
the law; actions have
consequences.
 The scientist has a right to
Social Everyone has a right to
fair compensation. Even if
contract choose life, regardless of the
his wife is sick, it does not
orientation law.
make his actions right.
Post-
3
Conventional
Saving a human life is a Others may need the
Universal more fundamental value medicine just as badly, and
human ethics than the property rights of their lives are equally
another person. significant.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_dilemma

See if you can do this!

Moral Dilemma

Ryan, 17, has been saving up money to buy a ticket for this concert or rock band. His
parents have discouraged him from going as the concert will surely be with a rowdy crowd.
The band is notorious for having out-of-control audience who somehow managed get drunk and
stoned during the concert. Ryan agreed not to watch anymore. But a day before the concert, Nic,
15-year-old brother of Ryan, saw a corner of what appeared to be a concert ticket showing in the
pocket of Ryan’s bag. Nic examined it and confirmed it was indeed a ticket. Looking at Ryan’s
bag, Nic also found an extra shirt and 2 sticks of marijuana. So he figured Ryan will go to the
concert after all. That night, Ryan told his parents that he was spending tomorrow night at a
classmate’s house for a school requirement. Then later that evening , he told Nic of his plan to go
the concert. Nic didn’t say anything, but he found it difficult to sleep that night, thinking whether
to tell their parents or not. If you were Nic, what would you do?

In this case, write a possible decision and reason for each stage of Kohlberg’s Moral
Development. Fill up the table below.

No, I will not tell

# Level Stage Yes, I will tell because…
because…

It is for Ryan safety and I am scared that Ryan

after all he is my brother might scold me and he
Obedience
and I am just concerned might think that I am
about him. jealous of him.
Pre-
1
Conventional
I will be much happier if
I feel bad for stopping him
I was able to tell it to our
Self-interest to be happy and I felt
parents because we only
guilty for it.
want safety for him.

I don’t want Ryan will

Our parents expected him mad at me. He just wanted
Conformity to be spending his night to attend this concert,
in his classmate’s house. because, that’s what makes
him happy.
2 Conventional
Ryan will be happy and
enjoy it. But, he will be
The law prohibits using
Law-and-order punished for disobeying
illegal drugs.
and for using and bring
some illegal drugs.

3 Post- Social contract Everyone has a right to Being remain silent is not a
Conventional orientation be happy, regardless of bad idea. Just let him do it
law. until he feel guilty and he
will eventually tell it to the
parents.
 Being happy is more Even though being happy
Universal
important than being is important they still need
human ethics
negative in all time. to know their limitation.

REASON AND IMPARTIALITY AS REQUIREMENTS FOR ETHICS

Lesson 11

Introduction

There are many rival theories, each expounding a different conception of what it
means to live morally, and any definition that goes beyond Socrates’ simple formulation
(how we ought to live) is bound to offend at least one of them. In this section of the module,
Rachels proposes a “minimum conception” of morality: a core that every moral theory
should accept, at least as a starting point.

Objectives

At the end of this lesson, you should be able to:

1. Recall immediate responses to moral dilemmas

2. Differentiate responses based on reason and those based on feelings

Try this!

Read the “Case of Baby Theresa”

Baby Theresa was born anencephalic, that is, without a cerebral cortex, the major thinking part
of the brain. Having only a brain stem, which can support such basic functions as respiration,
Baby Theresa was born alive but doomed to very rapid death. (Ninety-five percent of
anencephalics die within a week.) Anencephaly can be diagnosed in utero. Most parents abort.
Theresa's parents, however, decided to make something good of their tragedy. Theresa's mother
decided not only to carry her to term but to have her by Caesarean section so as better to preserve
the baby's organs for immediate transplant to other babies who need hearts, livers, kidneys and
corneas.

But there was one problem. If the family waited for Baby Theresa to die of natural causes, the
dying process would likely so damage Theresa's organs as to make them unfit for transplant. The
parents therefore asked the courts to declare their baby dead at birth so that her organs could be
removed. The courts refused. Nine days after birth, Theresa died. By then, as her parents had
feared, her organs were dead too.

Think ahead!

Should she have been killed so that her organs could have been used to save other
children? What about Baby Theresa’s life? What is your side of the issue? Defend your
answer?

No, even though there will people who will benefit the organs still not good idea. The most
important here is the life of the baby even though it has only a week for her to be alive still
it’s more important. It’s good that they still manage to save the baby’s life. Although the
organs are needed but there’s a lot of hospital who can provide those organs needed.

Read and Ponder

Reason and Impartiality

 Moral judgments must be backed by good reasons.

 Morality requires the impartial consideration of each individual’s interests.

Moral Reasoning
 We cannot rely on our feelings, no matter how powerful they might be.
 Our feelings may be irrational and may be nothing but products of prejudice, selfishness,
or cultural conditioning.
 Our decisions must be guided as much as possible by reason.
  The morally right thing to do is always the thing best supported by the arguments.

How can we tell if an argument is really good?

 Get the facts straight.
 Bring moral principles into play. Are they justified, and are they being correctly
applied?

The Requirement of Impartiality

 Each individual’s interests are equally important, and no one should get special
treatment.
 If there is no good reason for treating people differently, then discrimination is
unacceptable arbitrary.

The Minimum Conception of Morality

 Morality is, at the very least, the effort to guide one’s conduct by reason- that is, to
do what there are the best reasons for doing- while giving equal weight to the
interests of each individual affected by one’s decision.

The Conscientious Moral Agent. . .

 Is concerned impartially with the interests of everyone affected by what he or she does.
 Carefully sifts facts and examines their implications.
 Accepts principles of conduct only after scrutinizing them to make sure they are justified.
 Is willing to “listen to reason” even when it means revising prior convictions.
 Is willing to act on the results of this deliberation.

See if you can do this!

Did you get that? Now to test your understanding, try to answer the following questions.

1. What does Rachels think about the relationship between morality and feeling? Do you agree
with him on this? Why or why not?
2. According to Rachels, is morality a matter of personal taste? Why or why not? Do agree with
him? Explain.
3. According to Rachels, what determines if an act is right or wrong?

Your answers: (Use separate sheet if necessary)

1. Rachel thinks that feelings can be ok sign of passion, but also dangerous because it
can lead to biases. I agree that there’s a big difference between fact and opinion.
2. No, just because you have opinion about something doesn’t make it right or wrong.
You can’t rationally defend soemone’s likes or dislikes.
3. Where the weight reason lies right.