Moral development of individuals contributes to an organized society.

It is important for every individual to have moral development in order for them to have a better grasp of themselves and a tranquil conscious. This paper will discuss two theories on moral development: Lawrence Kohlberg and Carol Gilligan. Both theorists explain the development of morals throughout life. Kohlbergs research consists of male participants, while Gilligans response to this is specifically focusing on the moral development of women. Lawrence Kohlbergs: Theory of Moral Development Kohlbergs theory of moral development is a continuation to the research that Piaget started. Kohlbergs inspiration towards Piaget motivated him to further expand on Piagets work by going past the early ages in childhood that Piaget has studied. Kohlberg also felt that the moral maturation and moral development was much more gradual than Piaget. Similar to Piaget, Kohlberg believed that changes were due to cognitive ability rather than changes of the self. Kohlbergs study consisted of him interviewing children and adolescents and presented them with a hypothetical dilemma. He then asked the participants to describe what the protagonist should or would do (Kohlberg, 1993). These interviews would later allow him to formulate his theory of moral development. Kohlbergs theory consists of three levels that are divided into six stages. In level 1: the pre-conventional or pre-moral level, assumes moral dilemmas are based on external standards. Typically people experience this level from ages 4 to 10. Behavior is governed on whether a child will receive a reward or punishment. The first stage, assumes children will be obedient to avoid punishment. The second stage, focuses on receiving rewards rather than punishment. Childrens behavior is geared towards doing

the right thing in exchange for a reward or compensation. In Level 2: the conventional level, moral thought focuses on conforming to conventional roles. Occasionally, this level occurs from ages 10 to 13. Behavior is influenced by what is expected of you from people. While moral standards begin to be internalized, they are still based on what others dictate, instead of what is personally decided. Stage 3, involves obtaining the approval of others. Good mutual relationships with trust, loyalty, and respect become very important. Stage 4, stresses the need to uphold to law. Law and order are considered necessary in order to maintain the social order. In Level 3: termed autonomous moral principles, deals with the development of a moral conscience that goes beyond what others say (Davis & Palladino, 2000, p. 406). Individuals in this level become self-determined, independent thinkers. Behavior is based on values rather than laws by prioritizing the needs and wellbeing of others. True morality is achieved in this level. In stage 5, upholds to social acceptation of laws and principles. Law is view as good for the general public welfare. However, laws are subject to interpretation and change. Stage 6 is the ultimate attainment. In this stage, the individual is free of the thoughts and opinions expresses by others. Decisions are well-founded on ones personal conscience transcending laws and regulations (Kirst-Ashman & Zastrow, 2004, p. 261-262 Higgins, Kohlberg, & Power, 1989, p. 8-9). A strength of Kohlbergs theory is that it is empirical. Kohlberg closely followed Piagets workings and conducted a similar clinical scientific interviewing process with participants. In addition, he initiated a longitudinal study in which he interviewed his subjects every four years to test their level of moral judgment. Kohlbergs research shows a consistent progress relevant to the ages given in his theory (Berk, 2006, p. 489, 491).

Another strength is developing a moral development for individuals in an organized society. His theory can be used as a common ground that can serve as guidance for individuals. The limitations of the theory are the concentration on hypothetical moral development rather than on moral behavior, culture, and gender. Kohlberg presents the participants with hypothetical moral dilemmas. He asks what the main actor or protagonist should or would in the scenario along with an explanation. Berk, (2006, 488) for example, highlights a well-known scenario from Kohlbergs interview. The Heinz dilemma addresses the issue of value by either obeying the law or going against the value of saving a human life. The scenario is about a woman in Europe who is close to dying from cancer. There is a drug doctors think might save her, which a pharmacist in the same town has discovered. The pharmacist is overcharging the womens husband, Heinz, ten times more than the actual cost of the drug. The pharmacist is not willing to bargain with Heinz and is dogmatic to sell him the drug for anything cheaper than what he is offering. Heinz has attempted to borrow money but is not able to gather enough to pay for the drug. Eventually, Heinz becomes hopeless and breaks into the pharmacist store to steal the drug for his wife. The participants are asked whether or not Heinz should have stolen the drug along with an explanation. Although this scenario may apply to the participants in near future this is not relevant to the daily moral dilemmas people come across on a daily bases such as deciding on to whether to attend a party or use drugs. Also these daily moral dilemmas may fall at a lower stage compared to the responses given in hypothetical dilemmas because the individuals reasoning can be influenced by other factors such as culture. Kirst-Ashman and Zastrow (2004, p. 262)

uses Richard Nixon as an example of how Kohlbergs theory focuses on moral thought and not moral behavior. During his presidency, Nixon advocated high moral standards, but later on he was forced to resign after it was discovered that he covered up the Watergate break in and theft of Democrat party documents. Another factor that is not considered is culture, a research conducted by Snarey (1987) in 27 countries, found that Kohlbergs framework does not incorporate the higher moral ideals that some cultures embrace. Examples of such higher reasoning that was not taken into consideration within Kohlbergs framework include values related to communal equity and collective happiness in Israel, the unity and sacredness of all life forms in India, and the relation of the individual to the community in New Guinea (Kist-Ashman & Zastrow, 2004, p. 262). Gender is the third limitation in Kohlbergs research. There is an assumption that his study is bias because all of the participants are solely male. This limitation challenged theorist, Carol Gilligan, to conduct her own study on moral development on females. Gilligan states in Berk (2006) that Kohlbergs theory does not adequately represent the morality of girls and women (p. 493). Furthermore, Gilligan believes that feminine morality focuses on an ethic of care that is devalued in Kohlbergs system. There is evidence that shows females are more likely to emphasize care, or empathic perspective taking rather than emphasizing justice or focusing on justice and care like males. Such difference occurs most often in real-life situations rather than in hypothetical dilemmas (Berk, 2006, p. 493). Based on the gathered information from this research Kohlbergs theory does not account for the influence of social privileges and social oppressions. The theory hypothetically focuses on the moral development of individuals. Taking in consideration

the theory has limitations it is not likely to influence social privileges and social oppression because the theory is used more as guide. Carol Gilligan theory of moral development on women Carol Gilligans theory, sustains her stance that women are more likely to adopt an ethic care perspective in terms of their interaction with others. Gilligan and her associates (Kirst-Ashman & Zastrow, 2004, p. 262) major assumption is that womens moral development usually rests on their personal interest and commitment to the good of others close to them. Furthermore, she highlights that women primary focus on sensitive care rather than just justice like men. Occasionally this involves sacrificing ones own well-being for others. Gilligans study targeted 29 female participants who were receiving pregnancy and abortion counseling. Gilligan argues that pregnancy and birth is a part of a womens life in which she has choice and is able to relate to. In Level 1, Orientation to Personal Survival, focuses solely on the womens self-interest in which personal survival such as practicality and her best interest is the highly vital. Transition 1, shifts from personal selfishness to responsibility, entails the movement in moral thought from only considering self to also taking into consideration others involved. On Level 2: Goodness as Self-Sacrifice, moral behavior entails putting aside ones own needs and wishes for the well-being of others. It assumes women in this level are reliant on what other people think. Usually it can be conflictive when the woman is taking responsibility for her own actions and is feeling pressure from others to make her own decisions. In Transition 2, women begin to analyze their situations more objectively. They withdraw from solely relying on others input. In its place, they take into account the well-being of everyone as well as themselves. Certain concerns from Level 1 return, however in a more

objective approach. Level 3: The Morality of Nonviolent Responsibility involves women thinking in regards of the consequences of their decisions and actions. In this level womens thinking has evolved from being concerned about others opinion to taking responsibility for their own decision making. She puts herself on the same plane with others, evaluates the various consequences of her possible actions, and acknowledges the reality that she is going to be responsible for these consequences. The overall concept is to minimize pain for both others and herself (Kirst-Ashman & Zastrow, 2004, p. 263 ). A strength of this theory is the presentation of the feminine perspective on moral development. Gilligans theory on moral development focuses and gives attention to the feminine ideal which stresses care. According to Kirst-Ashman & Zastrow, (2004, p. 262) there is some evidence that shows females having an empathic perspective take verses males who either underline justice or equally concentrate on justice and care. A study conducted on American and Canadian 17 to 26 year old females demonstrated they have more complex reasoning about care issues than their male counterparts (Berk, 2006, p. 493). Another study that also supports Gilligans theory is by Skoe and Gooden (1993) who asked 46 participants of ages 11 and 12 year old males and females to respond to three established everyday scenarios that posed ethical dilemmas, in addition they were asked to describe a personal incident. Findings revealed similar results in where girls are more likely than boys to express concern about retaining friendships along with avoiding hurting others emotionally. Meanwhile, boys were more likely to be worried about their own dilemmas and discussed about common issues such as staying out of trouble (KirstAshman & Zastrow, 2004, p. 263). Aside from receiving support from other studies on her theory, Gilligans theory also encourages other professionals to also consider the

female perspective. Her theory allows for individuals to acknowledge situations in a more sensitive manner verses than just concentrating on the moral justice like Kohlbergs theory does (Berk, 2006, p. 493). One limitation of this theory is it does not take into consideration culture like Kohlbergs moral theory. In a study conducted on Japanese adolescents, it found that it is common for the Asian culture to integrate care and justice reasoning. Berk (2006, p. 493) discusses how collectivist values of Asian culture openly stress care and concern for others as a social norm. Situations that were presented to the girls did not take into consideration their values when relating to their culture. In a particular situation a girls response can be influenced differently with their culture values or environmental setting. Another limitation of this theory does not adequately classify adulthood stages. Gilligan does not specify the age group of the women in the stages. Gillians theory can not account for the influence of social privileges and social oppressions because it allows for individuals to further examine moral development with a sensitive perspective. For example, the NSAW Code of Ethics primary principle derives from Gilligans theory of moral development. Based on research, Gilligans theory focuses on the sensitive care of moral development rather than just on justice. Kohlbergs theory on moral development would influence my social work practice because it would serve as a guidance to follow when dealing with a teenager who is encountering a moral dilemma at school. I would use Kohlbergs moral development theory as a reference to guide me on what stage the teen falls under, but I would also take into consideration other factors such as the teens environmental setting, culture, gender, and economic status to better assess the teen. Some of the questions I would ask the teen

would be: It seems to me that you have a good set of morals then why is that you do all of these bad things? Do you value your friendship that much that you are willing to risk damaging your own school record? Or are you sometimes in a difficult position which you are not able to get yourself out of? As for Gilligans theory I will not only limit myself to using it on females but also on male clients who may seem to exhibit more feminine traits. The reason for this being that Gillians theory concentrates on sensitive care rather than justice. As far as using the theory as an influence in the social work practice I will also use it as a guide to help assess women and men who are going through moral dilemmas. If I had an older female client is going through a crisis because she feels obligated to visit her husband everyday at the nursing home even though she has health problems, I would consult Gilligans moral development levels. Using the theory as a guide I will be able to better assess her. Questions that I would ask are: Do you feel morally obligated to visit him? Do you feel that others opinion influences your decision to visit him? Finally, the social worker goal should try and help people achieve their own solutions to their problems using their own personal moral reasoning instead of imposing personal values and opinions in them.

Bibliography Berk, L.E. (2006). Child development. (7th ed.). Boston, New York, San Francisco, Mexico City, Montreal, Toronto, London, Madrid, Munich, Paris, Hong Kong, Singapore, Captown, Sydney: Pearson Education, Inc. Davis, S.E. & Palladino, J.J. (2000). Psychology. (3rd ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Higgins, A., Kohlberg, L., & Power, C.F. (1989). Lawrence Kohlbergs approach to moral education. New York: Columbia University Press. Kirst-Ashman, K. K. & Zastrow, C.H. (2004). Understanding human behavior and the social environment. (6th ed.). Australia, Canada, Mexico, Singapore, Spain, United Kingdom, United States: Thomson Learning, Inc. - Brooks/Cole. Kohlberg, L., Levine, C., Hewer, A. (1983). .Moral stages : a current formulation and a response to critics. New York: Karger. Inc.