Originally posted by earthlings73:
And moral can exist independent of Religion.. This is a
psychologist's version of what constitute morality.. Do pay
attention to stage 5.. A person can go either way depending on
circumstances.. It's hard to divide the world into the blacks and
the whites.. There are many things that fall between.. It depends
on the basis in which u come up with the reasoning..
[b]Kohlberg's stages of moral development
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Kohlberg's stages of moral development were developed by Lawrence
Kohlberg to explain the development of moral reasoning. He created
it while at University of Chicago when becoming fascinated with
children's reactions to moral dilemmas. He wrote his doctoral
dissertation there in 1958, outlining what is now his stages of
moral development.
Kohlberg's theory holds that moral reasoning, which he thought to
be the basis for ethical behavior, has developmental stages.
Building upon Jean Piaget's previous work, he concluded that there
are six identifiable stages of moral development. Later his model
was revised and reduced to five stages given there was a lack
reponses in studies owning to a clear boundary of the last stage of
moral development.
Contents [hide]
1 Stages
1.1 Pre-Conventional
1.2 Conventional
1.3 Post-Conventional
1.4 Other
2 Examples
3 Theoretical assumptions
4 Criticism
5 External link
[edit]
Stages
Kohlberg's stages were broken into 3 different levels,
pre-conventional, conventional and post-conventional. According to
his model it is not possible to regress backwards in stages. It is
also not possible to 'jump' stages; each stage provides new
perspective and is "more comprehensive, differentiated and
integrated than its predecessors."
Other models resemble Kohlberg's, including James Fowler's six
stages of faith and Jane Loevinger's nine stages of ego
development.
Level 1 (Pre-Conventional)
1. Obedience and punishment orientation
2. Self-interest orientation
Level 2 (Conventional)
3. Interpersonal accord and conformity
(a.k.a. The good boy/good girl attitude)
4. Authority and social-order maintaining orientation
(a.k.a. Law and order morality)
Level 3 (Post-Conventional)
5. Social contract orientation
6. Universal ethical principles
(a.k.a. Principled conscience)
[edit]
Pre-Conventional
The pre-conventional level of moral reasoning is especially common
in children, although adults can also exhibit this level of
reasoning. Reasoners in the pre-conventional level judge the
morality of an action by its direct consequences. The
pre-conventional level consists of the first and second stage of
moral development.
Stage one, individuals focus on the direct consequences that their
actions will have for themselves. For example, they think that an
action is morally wrong if the person who commits it gets
punished.
Stage two espouses the what's in it for me position; right behavior
being defined by what is in one's own best interest. Stage two
reasoning shows a limited interest in the needs of others, but only
to a point where it might further one's own interests, such as "you
scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours." Concern for others is not
based on loyalty or intrinsic respect in stage two.
[edit]
Conventional
The conventional level of moral reasoning is typical of adolescents
and adults. Persons who reason in a conventional way judge the
morality of actions by comparing these actions to social rules and
expectations.
The conventional level consists of stages three and four of moral
development.
In Stage three, individuals whose moral reasoning is in stage three
seek approval from other people. They try to be a good boy or good
girl having learned that there is inherent value in doing so. Stage
three reasoning may judge the morality of an action by evaluating
its consequences in terms of a person's relationships.
For Stage four, it is important to obey the laws and social
conventions because of its importance to maintaining society. Moral
reasoning in stage four is thus beyond the need for approval
exhibited in stage three.
[edit]
Post-Conventional
The post-conventional level consists of stages five and six of
moral development.
In Stage five, persons have certain principles to which they may
attach more value than laws, such as human rights or social
justice. In this reasoning, actions are wrong if they violate these
ethical principles. Laws are regarded as social contracts rather
than dictums, and must be changed when necessary (provided there is
agreement). By this reasoning laws that do not promote general
social welfare, should be changed. Democratic governments are
ostensibly based on Stage five reasoning.
In Stage six, moral reasoning is based on the use of abstract
reasoning using universal ethical principles. One way to do this is
by imagining oneself in everyone else's shoes, imagining what they
would decide if they were doing the same. While Kohlberg insisted
that stage six exists, he had difficulty finding participants who
use it. It appears that people rarely if ever reach stage six of
Kohlberg's model.
[edit]
Other
Kohlberg also observed that there is a stage 4½ or 4+ which is a
transition from stage four to stage five. This stage is where
people have become disaffected with the arbitrary nature of law and
order reasoning and become moral relativists. This transition stage
may result in either progress to stage five or in regression to
stage four.
Kohlberg further speculated that a seventh stage may exist
(Transcendental Morality) which would link religion with moral
reasoning (See James Fowler's stages of faith).
[edit]
Examples
Kohlberg used moral dilemmas to determine which stage of moral
reasoning a person uses. The dilemmas are short stories in which a
person has to make a moral decision. The participant is asked what
this person should do. A dilemma that Kohlberg used in his original
research was the druggist's dilemma:
A woman was near death from a unique kind of cancer. There is a
drug that might save her. The drug costs $4,000 per dosage. 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 $2,000. He asked the doctor scientist who discovered the drug
for a discount or let him pay later. But the doctor scientist
refused.
Should Heinz break 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. The point of interest is
the justification that the participant offers. Below are examples
of possible arguments that belong to the six stages. It is
important to keep in mind that these arguments are only examples.
It is possible that a participant reaches a completely different
conclusion using the same stage of reasoning:
Stage one (obedience): Heinz should not steal the medicine, because
he will consequently be put in prison.
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.
Stage three (conformity): Heinz should steal the medicine, because
his wife expects it.
Stage four (law-and-order): Heinz should not steal the medicine,
because the law prohibits stealing.
Stage five (human rights): Heinz should steal the medicine, because
everyone has a right to live, regardless of the law. Or: Heinz
should not steal the medicine, because the scientist has a right to
fair compensation.
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 that violates the golden rule of
honesty and respect.
Stage seven (transcendental morality):Heinz should choose to spend
more time with his wife in their remaining days, both acknowledging
the cycle of life-and-death which is a part of the human
condition.
[/b]
hmmm... read teh criticisms of Kohlberg's Theory yet?
