Lawrence Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development In Psychology
Lawrence Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development Example -Suppose your best friend is dying of cancer. You hear of a chemist who has just discovered a new wonder drug that could save her life. The chemist is selling the drug for $5,000, many times more than it cost him to make. You try to borrow the full amount but can get only $2,500. You ask the chemist to sell you the drug for $2,500 and he refuses. Later that night, you break into the chemist’s laboratory and steal the drug. Should you have done that?
Read more topics :
Read more topics :
Did you decide that it would be all right to steal the drug to save the life of your dying friend? If you did, how did you justify your moral decision?
Lawrence Kohlberg (1984) and associates presented similar dilemmas to individuals who were asked to explain their moral decisions. On the basis of such studies, Kohlberg explained the development of moral reasoning in terms of three levels.
Level 1 Self-Interest
The preconventional level, which represents Kohlberg’s lowest level of moral reasoning, has two stages.
At stage 1, moral decisions are based primarily on fear of punishment or the need to be obedient;
at stage 2, moral reasoning is guided most by satisfying one’s self-interest, which may involve making bargains.
For example, individuals at stage 1 might say that you should not steal the drug because you’ll be caught and go to jail. Individuals at stage 2 might say that you can steal the drug and save your best friend, but in return you’ll have to give up some freedom by going to jail. Most children are at the preconventional level.
Level 2 Social Approval
The conventional level, which represents an intermediate level of moral reasoning, also has two stages.
At stage 3, moral decisions are guided most by conforming to the standards of others we value;
at stage 4, moral reasoning is determined most by conforming to laws of society.
Individuals at stage 3 might say that you should steal the drug since that is what your family would expect you to do. Individuals at stage 4 might say that you should not steal the drug because of what would happen to society if everybody took what they needed. Many adolescents and adults are at this level.
Level 3 Abstract Ideas
The postconventional level, which represents the highest level of moral reasoning, has one stage.
At stage 5, moral decisions are made after carefully thinking about all the alternatives and striking a balance between human rights and laws of society.
Individuals at stage 5 might say that one should steal the drug because life is more important than money. (Stage 6, which appeared in earlier versions of Kohlberg’s theory, has been omitted in later versions because too few people had reached it.) Some, but not all, adults reach the postconventional level.
Evaluating Kohlberg’s Theory
Stages : Kohlberg hypothesized that everyone goes through the five stages in sequence, with no skipping of stages.
Thinking versus behaving : Kohlberg focused on the development of moral thinking, not on the development of moral behavior in real-life situations (Damon, 1999).
Carol Gilligan (1982) criticized Kohlberg's stages by saying that, in making moral decisions, women use more of a CARE ORIENTATION, which is based on caring, having concern for others, and avoiding hurt, while men use more of a JUSTICE ORIENTATION, based on law, equality, and individual rights. However, research shows both men and women use a mixture of care and justice orientations, depending on the situation (Jaee & Hyde, 2000).
Brain or neural factors : the teenage brain has an underdeveloped prefrontal cortex, which results in an underdeveloped executive area and limits a teenager’s ability to think, reason, and make intelligent decisions needed for moral reasoning (Luna, 2006). Also supporting the role of the prefrontal cortex in moral reasoning are findings that individuals who had their prefrontal cortex damage in infancy had difficulty learning the normal social and moral rules in childhood and adolescence (A. Damasio, 1999). More recently, researchers identified different brain areas involved in moral decisions: Making impersonal moral decisions, such as keeping the money found in a stranger’s wallet, involved areas associated with retrieving information ; in comparison, making personal moral decisions, such as keeping the money found in a fellow worker’s wallet, involved areas associated with emotions. Thus, when we make moral decisions, especially those involving personal concerns (abortion, death penalty), we use not only reasoning and logic but also our gut feelings or emotions (J. D. Greene et al., 2004). Making moral decisions appears to involve some kind of unconscious process (Hauser, 2007). We may not be aware that our gut feelings are directing our moral decisions.
Researchers are now studying other aspects of moral judgment and development, such as prosocial behavior (helping others), moral emotions (remorse, guilt), and empathy (Killen & Smetana, 2006).
No comments:
Post a Comment