moral development reflection essay

We’re fighting to restore access to 500,000+ books in court this week. Join us!

Internet Archive Audio

• This Just In
• Grateful Dead
• Old Time Radio
• 78 RPMs and Cylinder Recordings
• Audio Books & Poetry
• Computers, Technology and Science
• Music, Arts & Culture
• News & Public Affairs
• Spirituality & Religion
• Radio News Archive

• Flickr Commons
• Occupy Wall Street Flickr
• NASA Images
• Solar System Collection
• Ames Research Center

• All Software
• Old School Emulation
• MS-DOS Games
• Historical Software
• Classic PC Games
• Software Library
• Kodi Archive and Support File
• Vintage Software
• CD-ROM Software
• CD-ROM Software Library
• Software Sites
• Tucows Software Library
• Shareware CD-ROMs
• Software Capsules Compilation
• CD-ROM Images
• ZX Spectrum
• DOOM Level CD

• Smithsonian Libraries
• FEDLINK (US)
• Lincoln Collection
• American Libraries
• Canadian Libraries
• Universal Library
• Project Gutenberg
• Children's Library
• Biodiversity Heritage Library
• Books by Language
• Additional Collections

• Prelinger Archives
• Democracy Now!
• Occupy Wall Street
• TV NSA Clip Library
• Animation & Cartoons
• Arts & Music
• Computers & Technology
• Cultural & Academic Films
• Ephemeral Films
• Sports Videos
• Videogame Videos
• Youth Media

Search the history of over 866 billion web pages on the Internet.

Mobile Apps

• Wayback Machine (iOS)
• Wayback Machine (Android)

Browser Extensions

Archive-it subscription.

• Explore the Collections
• Build Collections

Save Page Now

Capture a web page as it appears now for use as a trusted citation in the future.

Please enter a valid web address

• Donate Donate icon An illustration of a heart shape

Essays on moral development

Bookreader item preview, share or embed this item, flag this item for.

• Graphic Violence
• Explicit Sexual Content
• Hate Speech
• Misinformation/Disinformation
• Marketing/Phishing/Advertising
• Misleading/Inaccurate/Missing Metadata

plus-circle Add Review comment Reviews

957 Previews

21 Favorites

DOWNLOAD OPTIONS

No suitable files to display here.

PDF access not available for this item.

IN COLLECTIONS

Uploaded by station41.cebu on May 5, 2022

SIMILAR ITEMS (based on metadata)

Jordan Wenger

Reflecting on kohlberg’s & gilligan’s theories of moral development, october 12, 2020 jordan wenger comments 0 comment.

We all make mistakes, and as we age and gain more experiences we learn how to make morally guided decisions. Two major contributors to the theories on how we develop morality are Lawrence Kohlberg and Carol Gilligan.

Kohlberg contributed to moral development theory by:

Proposing three levels and six stages of moral development. These levels and stages are the following:

Level I: Preconventional Morality

Stage I: Punishment-Avoidance and Obedience

Stage II: Exchange of Favours

Level II: Conventional Morality

Stage III: Good Boy/Good Girl

Stage IV: Law and Order

Level III: Postconventional Morality

Stage V: Social Contract

Stage VI: Universal Ethical Principle

(Ormod et al., 2010, p. 75)

Gilligan contributed to moral development theory by:

Proposing that there are differences in moral development based on an individual’s sex and “moral development based on relation and response,” (Hsing-Chiung, 2015, p. 122). Gilligan elaborated on Kohlberg’s theory of moral development by discussing moral development from a sociological viewpoint that takes into account the differences in gender roles.

When I was in high school, I once took my Mom’s credit card without asking to buy some clothes for myself. I intended on paying her back the same week because I had the money to go shopping, I just did not have a way to access the money at the time. The money I saved up was in a savings account that I needed my Mom to come with me in order to take the money out. From what I remember, I did not have a good reason for not asking my mom if I could use her card. I think I just decided that since I was paying her back right away it was fine to do what I did.

How would Kohlberg view my decision?

Kohlberg would say that my decision would be a decision made by someone in the first stage of moral development, punishment avoidance and obedience. According to Ormond, Saklofske, and Schwean, Kohlberg’s first stage of moral development can be described as:

Individuals make decisions based on what is best for themselves, without regard for others’ needs or feelings. They obey rules only if established by more powerful individuals; they disobey when they can do so without getting caught. The only “wrong” behaviours are ones that will be punished. (2010, p. 75)

My decision is reflective of the first stage because I knew that the decision was wrong and my goal was only to avoid punishment by paying my Mom back right away. My decision is also reflective of the first stage because the rule that I should not take money without asking was established by a more powerful individual than myself; this person being my Mom.

How would Gilligan view my decision?

In “Theories of Morality in Early Childhood”, Hsing-Chiung Lin (2015) discusses Gilligan’s view of moral development. Hsing-Chiung (2015) points out that Gilligan discusses the attachment in relationships that is related to moral development. According to Gilligan, this attachment influences moral development.

In relation to the decision I made, my attachment to my mom influenced my decision. I decided to make the wrong decision because I knew that there is security in my relationship with my Mom. I knew that even though I took her credit card without asking she would still love me.

Hsing-Chiung, L. (2015). Theories of morality in early childhood. In T. David, K. Goouch, & S. Powell (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of philosophies and theories of early childhood education and care (pp. 119-127). London: Routledge.

Ormod, J.E., Saklofske, D.H., & Schwean, V.L. (2010). Principles of educational psychology. Toronto, ON: Pearson (pages 72-83)

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Sweepstakes
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development

Verywell / Bailey Mariner

• Applications
• Other Theories

Take This Pop Quiz

Kohlberg's theory of moral development is a theory that focuses on how children develop morality and moral reasoning. Kohlberg's theory suggests that moral development occurs in a series of six stages and that moral logic is primarily focused on seeking and maintaining justice.

Here we discuss how Kohlberg developed his theory of moral development and the six stages he identified as part of this process. We also share some critiques of Kohlberg's theory, many of which suggest that it may be biased based on the limited demographics of the subjects studied.

Test Your Knowledge

At the end of this article, take a fast and free pop quiz to see how much you've learned about Kohlberg's theory.

What Is Moral Development?

Moral development is the process by which people develop the distinction between right and wrong (morality) and engage in reasoning between the two (moral reasoning).

How do people develop morality? This question has fascinated parents, religious leaders, and philosophers for ages, but moral development has also become a hot-button issue in psychology and education. Do parental or societal influences play a greater role in moral development? Do all kids develop morality in similar ways?

American psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg developed one of the best-known theories exploring some of these basic questions. His work modified and expanded upon Jean Piaget's previous work but was more centered on explaining how children develop moral reasoning.

Kohlberg extended Piaget's theory, proposing that moral development is a continual process that occurs throughout the lifespan. Kohlberg's theory outlines six stages of moral development within three different levels.

In recent years, Kohlberg's theory has been criticized as being Western-centric with a bias toward men (he primarily used male research subjects) and for having a narrow worldview based on upper-middle-class value systems and perspectives.

How Kohlberg Developed His Theory

Kohlberg based his theory on a series of moral dilemmas presented to his study subjects. Participants were also interviewed to determine the reasoning behind their judgments in each scenario.

One example was "Heinz Steals the Drug." In this scenario, a woman has cancer and her doctors believe only one drug might save her. This drug had been discovered by a local pharmacist and he was able to make it for $200 per dose and sell it for $2,000 per dose. The woman's husband, Heinz, could only raise $1,000 to buy the drug.

He tried to negotiate with the pharmacist for a lower price or to be extended credit to pay for it over time. But the pharmacist refused to sell it for any less or to accept partial payments. Rebuffed, Heinz instead broke into the pharmacy and stole the drug to save his wife. Kohlberg asked, "Should the husband have done that?"

Kohlberg was not interested so much in the answer to whether Heinz was wrong or right but in the reasoning for each participant's decision. He then classified their reasoning into the stages of his theory of moral development.

Stages of Moral Development

Kohlberg's theory is broken down into three primary levels. At each level of moral development, there are two stages. Similar to how Piaget believed that not all people reach the highest levels of cognitive development, Kohlberg believed not everyone progresses to the highest stages of moral development.

Level 1. Preconventional Morality

Preconventional morality is the earliest period of moral development. It lasts until around the age of 9. At this age, children's decisions are primarily shaped by the expectations of adults and the consequences of breaking the rules. There are two stages within this level:

• Stage 1 (Obedience and Punishment) : The earliest stages of moral development, obedience and punishment are especially common in young children, but adults are also capable of expressing this type of reasoning. According to Kohlberg, people at this stage see rules as fixed and absolute. Obeying the rules is important because it is a way to avoid punishment.
• Stage 2 (Individualism and Exchange) : At the individualism and exchange stage of moral development, children account for individual points of view and judge actions based on how they serve individual needs. In the Heinz dilemma, children argued that the best course of action was the choice that best served Heinz’s needs. Reciprocity is possible at this point in moral development, but only if it serves one's own interests.

Level 2. Conventional Morality

The next period of moral development is marked by the acceptance of social rules regarding what is good and moral. During this time, adolescents and adults internalize the moral standards they have learned from their role models and from society.

This period also focuses on the acceptance of authority and conforming to the norms of the group. There are two stages at this level of morality:

• Stage 3 (Developing Good Interpersonal Relationships) : Often referred to as the "good boy-good girl" orientation, this stage of the interpersonal relationship of moral development is focused on living up to social expectations and roles . There is an emphasis on conformity , being "nice," and consideration of how choices influence relationships.
• Stage 4 (Maintaining Social Order) : This stage is focused on ensuring that social order is maintained. At this stage of moral development, people begin to consider society as a whole when making judgments. The focus is on maintaining law and order by following the rules, doing one’s duty, and respecting authority.

Level 3. Postconventional Morality

At this level of moral development, people develop an understanding of abstract principles of morality. The two stages at this level are:

• Stage 5 (Social Contract and Individual Rights ): The ideas of a social contract and individual rights cause people in the next stage to begin to account for the differing values, opinions, and beliefs of other people. Rules of law are important for maintaining a society, but members of the society should agree upon these standards.
• Stage 6 (Universal Principles) : Kohlberg’s final level of moral reasoning is based on universal ethical principles and abstract reasoning. At this stage, people follow these internalized principles of justice, even if they conflict with laws and rules.

Kohlberg believed that only a relatively small percentage of people ever reach the post-conventional stages (around 10 to 15%). One analysis found that while stages one to four could be seen as universal in populations throughout the world, the fifth and sixth stages were extremely rare in all populations.

Applications for Kohlberg's Theory

Understanding Kohlberg's theory of moral development is important in that it can help parents guide their children as they develop their moral character. Parents with younger children might work on rule obeyance, for instance, whereas they might teach older children about social expectations.

Teachers and other educators can also apply Kohlberg's theory in the classroom, providing additional moral guidance. A kindergarten teacher could help enhance moral development by setting clear rules for the classroom, and the consequences for violating them. This helps kids at stage one of moral development.

A teacher in high school might focus more on the development that occurs in stage three (developing good interpersonal relationships) and stage four (maintaining social order). This could be accomplished by having the students take part in setting the rules to be followed in the classroom, giving them a better idea of the reasoning behind these rules.

Criticisms for Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development

Kohlberg's theory played an important role in the development of moral psychology. While the theory has been highly influential, aspects of the theory have been critiqued for a number of reasons:

• Moral reasoning does not equal moral behavior : Kohlberg's theory is concerned with moral thinking, but there is a big difference between knowing what we ought to do versus our actual actions. Moral reasoning, therefore, may not lead to moral behavior.
• Overemphasizes justice : Critics have pointed out that Kohlberg's theory of moral development overemphasizes the concept of justice when making moral choices. Factors such as compassion, caring, and other interpersonal feelings may play an important part in moral reasoning.
• Cultural bias : Individualist cultures emphasize personal rights, while collectivist cultures stress the importance of society and community. Eastern, collectivist cultures may have different moral outlooks that Kohlberg's theory does not take into account.
• Age bias : Most of his subjects were children under the age of 16 who obviously had no experience with marriage. The Heinz dilemma may have been too abstract for these children to understand, and a scenario more applicable to their everyday concerns might have led to different results.
• Gender bias : Kohlberg's critics, including Carol Gilligan, have suggested that Kohlberg's theory was gender-biased since all of the subjects in his sample were male. Kohlberg believed that women tended to remain at the third level of moral development because they place a stronger emphasis on things such as social relationships and the welfare of others.

Gilligan instead suggested that Kohlberg's theory overemphasizes concepts such as justice and does not adequately address moral reasoning founded on the principles and ethics of caring and concern for others.

Other Theories of Moral Development

Kohlberg isn't the only psychologist to theorize how we develop morally. There are several other theories of moral development.

Piaget's Theory of Moral Development

Kohlberg's theory is an expansion of Piaget's theory of moral development. Piaget described a three-stage process of moral development:

• Stage 1 : The child is more concerned with developing and mastering their motor and social skills, with no general concern about morality.
• Stage 2 : The child develops unconditional respect both for authority figures and the rules in existence.
• Stage 3 : The child starts to see rules as being arbitrary, also considering an actor's intentions when judging whether an act or behavior is moral or immoral.

Kohlberg expanded on this theory to include more stages in the process. Additionally, Kohlberg believed that the final stage is rarely achieved by individuals whereas Piaget's stages of moral development are common to all.

Moral Foundations Theory

Proposed by Jonathan Haidt, Craig Joseph, and Jesse Graham, the moral foundations theory is based on three morality principles:

• Intuition develops before strategic reasoning . Put another way, our reaction comes first, which is then followed by rationalization.
• Morality involves more than harm and fairness . Contained within this second principle are a variety of considerations related to morality. It includes: care vs. harm, liberty vs. oppression, fairness vs. cheating, loyalty vs. betrayal , authority vs. subversion, and sanctity vs. degradation.
• Morality can both bind groups and blind individuals . When people are part of a group, they will tend to adopt that group's same value systems. They may also sacrifice their own morals for the group's benefit.

While Kohlberg's theory is primarily focused on help vs. harm, moral foundations theory encompasses several more dimensions of morality. However, this theory also fails to explain the "rules" people use when determining what is best for society.

Normative Theories of Moral Behavior

Several other theories exist that attempt to explain the development of morality , specifically in relation to social justice. Some fall into the category of transcendental institutionalist, which involves trying to create "perfect justice." Others are realization-focused, concentrating more on removing injustices.

One theory falling into the second category is social choice theory. Social choice theory is a collection of models that seek to explain how individuals can use their input (their preferences) to impact society as a whole. An example of this is voting, which allows the majority to decide what is "right" and "wrong."

See how much you've learned (or maybe already knew!) about Kohlberg's theory of moral development with this quick, free pop quiz.

While Kohlberg's theory of moral development has been criticized, the theory played an important role in the emergence of the field of moral psychology. Researchers continue to explore how moral reasoning develops and changes through life as well as the universality of these stages. Understanding these stages offers helpful insights into the ways that both children and adults make moral choices and how moral thinking may influence decisions and behaviors.

Lapsley D. Moral agency, identity and narrative in moral development .  Hum Dev . 2010;53(2):87-97. doi:10.1159/000288210

Elorrieta-Grimalt M. A critical analysis of moral education according to Lawrence Kohlberg .  Educación y Educadores . 2012;15(3):497-512. doi:10.5294/edu.2012.15.3.9

Govrin A. From ethics of care to psychology of care: Reconnecting ethics of care to contemporary moral psychology .  Front Psychol . 2014;5:1135. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01135

American Psychological Association. Heinz dilemma .

American Psychological Association. Kohlberg's theory of moral development .

Kohlberg L, Essays On Moral Development . Harper & Row; 1985.

Ma HK. The moral development of the child: An integrated model .  Front Public Health . 2013;1:57. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2013.00057

Gibbs J.  Moral Development And Reality . 4th ed. Oxford University Press; 2019.

Gilligan C.  In A Different Voice . Harvard University Press; 2016.

Patanella D. Piaget's theory of moral development . Encyclopedia of Child Behavior and Development . 2011. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-79061-9_2167

Dubas KM, Dubas SM, Mehta R. Theories of justice and moral behavior . J Legal Ethical Regulatory Issues . 2014;17(2):17-35.

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Access your Commentary account.

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password via email.

• September 2024

The monthly magazine of opinion.

Essays on Moral Development, by Lawrence Kohlberg

Essays on Moral Development, Volume One: The Philosophy of Moral Development. by Lawrence Kohlberg. Harper & Row. 441 pp. $21.95.

Lawrence Kohlberg is a Harvard psychologist who has been insisting for two decades that the study of children’s moral reasoning can guide society in distinguishing right from wrong. His work has been influential—it has supplied much of the impetus behind “moral education” courses that are appearing even in elementary schools. The present collection of essays is concerned with the moral and pedagogical consequences Kohlberg draws from his empirical findings about children, from cross-cultural studies, and from “longitudinal” studies of given subjects at different ages.

Kohlberg discerns six “stages of moral development.” The first four are uncontroversial, extending from the child’s obedience out of fear of punishment to the “my station and its duties” mentality attributed to J. Edgar Hoover. Stage 5, the “official morality of the U.S. Constitution,” recognizes obligations based on contract, plus basic rights like life and liberty. Stage 6—to which this book is a sustained hosannah—adds “justice,” interpreted as “rationally demonstrable universal ethical principles” based on “respect for the dignity of human beings as individuals.”

What distinguishes stage 6 from stage 5 is, in effect, the willingness to disobey laws that conflict with these principles. Kohlberg estimates the number of stage 6’s to be 5 percent of the American population, but his only sustained example of a 6 is Martin Luther King, Jr. Socrates sometimes rates a 6, but is elsewhere demoted to a “5B,” apparently for taking the laws of Athens too seriously. (Kohlberg repeatedly compares King with Socrates as a “moral teacher” executed by the society he made uncomfortable, as if James Earl Ray were a legally appointed executioner.) Lincoln and Gandhi are accorded 6’s in passing.

_____________

What makes a later stage a higher stage? Part of Kohlberg’s answer is the irreversibility of the sequence of stages: while most people become “fixed” at a stage lower than 6, no one ever retreats from a later stage to an earlier one. Ultimately, however, Kohlberg equates later with better because, he says, each stage resolves conflicts that remain unresolved at earlier stages. Thus, Kohlberg reports that his stage-5 respondents disagreed among themselves about whether a man may steal an expensive drug to save his wife’s life, whereas his stage-6 respondents unanimously approved of stealing the drug. Stage 6 is hence the summit of morality because it is the most “formally adequate,” “integrated” level of morality. Not only does it address every moral dilemma, but all who reach it will agree in their answers.

Kohlberg defends this patent absurdity—Socrates, King, Lincoln, and Gandhi would hardly have seen eye-to-eye about, say, homosexuality—by referring to John Rawls’s A Theory of Justice , “the newest great book of the liberal tradition,” which “systematically justifies” stage 6. In resting his own case on Rawls’s, Kohlberg is virtually asking the non-philosophical reader to accept his claims about stage 6 on faith. Still, the basic outlines of Kohlberg’s position are clear.

According to Rawls, when you truly apply the Golden Rule to a problem, you are not distracted by your own preferences or the natural human tendency to put your own interests first. The principles you come up with will be genuinely fair, or just, principles. Rawls’s basic idea is to devise a model situation in which people are really thinking along golden-rule lines. He has us picture rational egoists who have temporarily forgotten their actual places in society. In deliberating about principles that will govern their society, such self-regarding amnesiacs would imagine a principle’s impact on people of every status, and so not slight any person or position, however humble. And Rawls adds an extra twist: his egoists pay most heed to how the worst off will fare, since (for reasons Rawls never quite clarifies) each is obsessively afraid that he will turn out to be the worst off when the “veil of ignorance” lifts.

Kohlberg illustrates the supposedly computer-like operation of this “method of musical chairs” with the issue of capital punishment. Rawls’s model people would reject it, he says, because, while each recognizes the deterrent advantages of capital punishment, each thinks, “what if I were a murderer?” Each then realizes that the murderer would not want to be executed, and hence renounces capital punishment. Lest the reader accuse me of imputing to Kohlberg a position too preposterous for anyone to maintain, here are his own words: If we “assess the death penalty from the point of view of someone who takes into account the possibility of being a capital offender himself [we see that] the capital offender, obviously, would claim that he should be allowed to remain alive. . . . In short, at stage 6 the rational capital offender’s claim to life would be given priority over the claim of maximal protection from crime asserted by the representative ordinary citizen.”

Something has gone wrong. Kohlberg’s magical argument against capital punishment really works against any punishment; presumably he would repudiate parking tickets for according double-parkers insufficient respect. Kohlberg has apparently confused what one would want in a difficult situation with what one would claim he should be allowed to have. Were I a murderer in the electric chair I would hope for a pardon, a power failure, or anything else that would save me, but I would hardly suppose I had a “rational claim” to a right to live that offset the claims of innocents saved by my execution.

This confusion between what people would be willing to do and what they would claim a right to do skews Kohlberg’s understanding of the drug-stealing case, which he sees as a collision between “capitalist morality” and the “sacredness of life.” While it is true that I would stick at almost nothing to save my wife’s life, I would never claim a right on my part or my wife’s to do what I would do. Nor would I do those things to save a stranger, even though, on Kohlberg’s view, the issue involves a generalized right to life the stranger shares with my wife. (I think my attitude makes me a 3.)

Actually, far from resolving every hard problem, “equal respect under universal principles of justice” is an empty truism. Should Churchill warn Coventry about the planned Nazi bombing or remain silent to protect the secret that the British had cracked the Enigma code? Can British counterespionage frame an honorable U-boat captain to damage German morale? Any choice dooms someone, and avoiding the problem (“I don’t want anybody’s blood on my hands”) amounts to choosing to spare the captain and risk extra Allied lives. Whatever the solutions to such dilemmas, the incantation of “equal respect for everyone” will not reveal them.

Indeed, it quickly becomes clear that Kohlberg is just making up stage 6 as he goes along. He scales the peak of arbitrariness when he counsels a stage-6 wife dying of cancer to concur in her own mercy killing: “If the wife puts herself in the husband’s place, the grief she anticipates about her own death is more than matched by the grief a husband should feel at her pain.” Kohlberg does not disclose how to determine the pain the wife will feel, the pain the husband “should” feel, or, indeed, what has become of the “sacredness of life.”

In fact, there is no stage 6. Kohlberg fudges this by combining stages 5 and 6 in his statistics. Astonishingly, he admits in a candid paragraph that

our empirical findings do not clearly delineate a sixth stage. . . . None of our longitudinal subjects have reached the highest stage. Our examples of stage 6 come either from historical figures [conveniently unavailable for answering questionnaires] or from interviews with people who have extensive philosophic training. . . . Stage 6 is perhaps less a statement of an attained psychological reality than the specification of a direction in which, our theory claims, ethical development is moving.

This trumpery shows Kohlberg’s program of “moral education” for the instrument of propaganda it really is. Kohlberg’s proposal begins modestly enough, with Dewey’s insight that children learn best when challenged by problems that strain their current concepts. To this Kohlberg adds Piaget’s discovery that certain key concepts are learned only in a definite order of maturation. What results is a general educational strategy of helping children through natural cognitive stages by posing stimulating problems. Kohlberg now applies this to morals: since a child is disposed to pass through the levels of morality anyway, the teacher should boost him along with provocative tales about theft and murder.

Kohlberg dismisses the idea that schools, especially public schools, should leave ethics to others with the admonition that a “hidden moral curriculum”—of conformity—always lurks behind official postures of neutrality. But Kohlberg’s own pedagogy is anything but the Socratic midwife to a child’s autonomy. Those tales of mercy killings and the like, a “hidden moral curriculum” if there ever was one, are designed to push children along a specific policy agenda that has nothing to do with any natural bents, let alone with “rationally demonstrable universal ethical principles.”

Beneath the platitudes and the jargon, Kohlberg’s morality comes to a specious egalitarianism. It is hard to believe Kohlberg really thinks that any desire, however base or outrageous, deserves as much “respect”—i.e., satisfaction—as any other. But whatever “stage-6 morality” is, it is not synonymous with respect for persons as understood in the Kantian moral tradition Kohl-berg claims to be following. Kantian respect means allowing each person to choose his actions freely and to accept the consequences of his choices. Such respect has nothing to do with satisfying the desires of the autonomous beings who are said to deserve it.

After interviewing a captured Nazi, the hero of Nicholas Monsarrat’s autobiographical novel The Cruel Sea thinks to himself, “These people are not curable. We’ll just have to shoot them and hope for a better crop next time.” Hardly stage-6 thinking—which is why today I am alive to write this and you to read it.

The Diaspora Tragedy of Philip Roth

Joan Didion From the Couch

Brush Off Your Shakespeare

Scroll Down For the Next Article

Type and press enter

• More Networks

Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development (6 Stages + Examples)

Have you ever wondered why little kids think sharing toys is a rule because "it's nice," while older students might believe it's right because "it's fair"? As we grow up, how we think about right and wrong changes greatly. This isn't just random; there's a pattern to it. A smart guy named Lawrence Kohlberg devised a way to explain this change, calling it the "Stages of Moral Development."

Imagine climbing a set of stairs. At the bottom, we might do things to avoid getting in trouble or to get a reward. As we go higher, we start to think about what others expect from us and what's generally accepted as right in society. And for some, at the very top, they might start to question and think deeply about these rules themselves.

This article will dive into these stages, helping you understand how our thinking evolves at different ages. It's like a roadmap to our moral growth , showing us how and why our views on right and wrong shift as we age. Let's take a journey together and explore these stages!

What Are Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development? 

Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development is a theory proposed by psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg (1927-1987), which outlines the different levels and stages of moral reasoning that individuals go through as they develop their understanding of right and wrong. There are 6 stages of development, divided into 3 levels.

Lawrence Kohlberg expanded on and revised the ideas of cognitive theorist Jean Piaget . Piaget’s work suggested that children’s morality changes over time as they move through stages of mental development.

In his interviews, Kohlberg employed Piaget’s method of questioning participants about moral dilemmas. He would tell stories with conflicting ideas representing two moral values and ask children whether these were right or wrong. Kohlberg was less interested in the answers themselves than in understanding the thinking process behind them. 

Based on the children’s responses, Kohlberg classified their moral reasoning into three levels: pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional. He further divided each level into two distinct stages.

Stages of Moral Development and Ages

Like Piaget's theory of moral development , Kohlberg believes that moral development occurs in stages, but he argues that it is a continuous process throughout a person's life. 

Let’s look at the characteristics of each of Kohlberg’s stages.

Pre-conventional Level

At the lowest level of moral development, children under nine have not yet internalized society’s conventions as to right or wrong. Adults fully determine the moral standards of young children. For example, they accept the rules made by authority figures, parents, or teachers. They base their moral reasoning on the external consequences of their actions, such as punishment. 

Heinz's dilemma is often used in the study of moral development, particularly in Kohlberg's theory of moral development. The dilemma goes something like this:

Heinz's wife is dying from a rare cancer; the only medication that can save her is extremely expensive. Heinz cannot afford the medication, so he breaks into a pharmacy to steal it. He is caught by the police and brought to court. The judge must decide what to do with Heinz.

At this level, a child faced with Heinz’s dilemma would say that the man shouldn't steal the drug because stealing is wrong, and he will end up in prison.

Stage 1) Obedience and punishment

The obedience and punishment stage is based on children’s desire to follow the rules created by authority figures. Their motivation is simply to avoid being punished. If an action is perceived as morally wrong, it is because punishment is possible. Morality is, at this stage, external to the self. Children suppose that rules are fixed and must be respected.

At this stage, individuals make moral decisions based on avoiding punishment or seeking reward. They follow rules to avoid physical punishment or loss of privileges but don't understand that rules are based on social norms or the need for social order.

Individuals at this stage may also have a limited perspective, unable to see things from another's point of view, and they may not consider the intentions or circumstances behind someone's actions. For example, a child at this stage might think that stealing a toy from a store is always wrong, regardless of the reason why the person did it or the consequences that might follow.

To identify Stage 1, look for individuals mainly focused on avoiding punishment or seeking rewards who may not yet fully understand the concept of social norms or the importance of considering other people's perspectives. They may also display a rigid and inflexible approach to moral decision-making.

Stage 2) Self-interest

As children mature, their motivation for displaying certain behaviors shifts from seeking external rewards to considering what they personally believe is in their best interest. This stage of moral reasoning is self-centered and shows little or no consideration of the needs of others. Children start realizing that rules are not absolute. People can have different perspectives, and there is more than one correct point of view.

At this stage, individuals make moral decisions based on their own self-interest and the exchange of favors. They begin to understand that others have their needs and wants and may be willing to negotiate to meet them.

Individuals at this stage may also display a more flexible approach to moral decision-making, recognizing that there are different perspectives and that the rules can be changed if they benefit everyone. For example, a child at this stage might think it's okay to take someone else's toy if they offer something else in exchange or convince the other person that it's a fair trade.

To identify Stage 2, look for individuals who are mainly focused on their own self-interest but also aware of others' needs and wants. They may display a more flexible approach to rules and be willing to negotiate to achieve their goals. They may also be more aware of the social exchange of favors and obligations.

Conventional Level

The conventional level of morality is typical of adolescents and adults who internalize moral standards. An individual’s sense of morality is increasingly based on interpersonal relationships. At this level, children continue to conform to the rules of authority figures. But although they understand that there are conventions dictating how they should behave, following the rules is not necessarily related to the prospective punishment. Above all, they wish to ensure good relationships with others.

When presented with Heinz's dilemma, some older children at the conventional level of moral development might argue that while stealing the drug can be justified to save his wife's life, Heinz should still face the consequences and go to prison for his actions.

Stage 3) Conformity

During the conformity stage, children’s actions are motivated by the approval of others. Morality arises from living up to the standards of a group, such as family or community. Older children will often do their best to be good group members. Their moral decisions are based on whether they would win the approval of individuals whose opinions matter to them. The intentions of their actions are important regardless of the outcomes. 

At this stage, individuals make moral decisions based on the expectations and approval of others, particularly those who are important to them. They begin to understand that good behavior is seen as what pleases others, and they want to be seen as a good person in the eyes of those who are important to them.

Individuals at this stage are also more likely to take into account the feelings and perspectives of others and may seek to maintain positive relationships. For example, a child at this stage might think it's important to share toys with others so they will like them and want to play with them.

To identify Stage 3, look for individuals mainly focused on pleasing others and maintaining positive relationships. They may be more aware of social norms and expectations and may be more likely to take the perspective of others into account. They may also seek approval from authority figures and conform to social norms to gain approval.

Stage 4) Law and order

This stage is characterized by accepting rules because they are important in maintaining a functional society. Rules are the same for everyone, and it is essential that all members of society obey them. Moral reasoning goes beyond the need for individual approval of the conformity stage. Instead, morality is determined by what is best for most people. Individuals who obey law and authority and don’t challenge the established social order are perceived as good. 

At this stage, individuals make moral decisions based on a sense of duty to uphold social order and respect for authority. They begin to understand that social order depends on the rule of law and that laws must be respected to maintain social order.

Individuals at this stage are also more likely to consider the broader social context and the greater good rather than just their own personal relationships or interests. For example, a person at this stage might think it's important to follow traffic laws, not just to avoid a ticket or to please others, but because it's necessary for public safety and the greater good.

To identify Stage 4, look for individuals mainly focused on upholding social order and respect for authority. They may have a strong sense of duty and obligation to follow the rules and maintain social order. They may also be more likely to consider the broader social context and the greater good when making moral decisions.

Kohlberg believes that most individuals don’t develop their reasoning beyond this stage of moral development, in which morality is still predominantly dictated from the outside.

Postconventional Level

According to Kohlberg , only 10-15% of the population can achieve the post-conventional level of moral development because abstract principles and values define the sense of morality. 

Those individuals who attain the highest level of moral development question whether what they see around them is good. There is an increasing sense of individuals being separate entities from society. Morality on this level comes from self-defined principles. Laws that are seen as unjust should be removed or changed. Disobeying rules is not necessarily wrong when they are incompatible with personal principles. 

Participants in Kohlberg’s experiment who have reached the post-conventional level would believe that stealing the drug from the chemist’s office was not wrong. For them, saving a life is more important than the law itself.

Stage 5) Social Contract 

Individuals at this stage of moral development understand that society is full of contrasting opinions and values that should be respected. Laws are regarded as flexible social contracts. Laws that don't serve the greater common good should be changed to better align with the collective interests of society. In this context, morality and individual rights take precedence over established laws.

At this stage, individuals make moral decisions based on justice, democracy, and individual rights. They begin to understand that laws and social norms are not set in stone and can be changed if they do not promote the greater good or protect individual rights.

Individuals at this stage are also more likely to consider different groups' perspectives and recognize the need for compromise and negotiation. For example, a person at this stage might think it's important to advocate for policies promoting equality and individual rights, even if it means challenging existing laws or social norms.

To identify Stage 5, look for individuals mainly focused on justice and rights. They may be more likely to challenge authority and advocate for change if they see laws or social norms as unjust or unfair. They may also be more aware of the perspectives of different groups and the need for compromise and negotiation to achieve the greater good.

Stage 6) Universal Ethical Principles

In the final stage of moral development, individuals construct their own moral principles, which might sometimes deviate from societal laws. Their moral reasoning becomes more abstract, rooted in universal ethical principles, as described by Kohlberg. These principles embrace notions such as equality (valuing everyone equally, irrespective of status or background), dignity (recognizing the inherent worth of every person), and respect (upholding others' rights and sentiments).

At this stage, individuals believe that laws should align with these universal principles. If laws are perceived as unjust based on these principles, they feel such laws can and should be challenged or disobeyed. However, Kohlberg believed that very few people consistently operate at this advanced stage.

Individuals at this stage are also more likely to take a principled, ethical approach to decision-making and may see themselves as part of a larger moral community. For example, a person at this stage might think it's important to fight against social injustices such as discrimination or environmental destruction, even if it means going against established laws or social norms.

To identify Stage 6, look for individuals mainly focused on universal ethical principles and willing to take personal risks to uphold them. They may be more likely to challenge established laws or social norms if they see them as unjust or harmful. They may also see themselves as part of a larger moral community and be motivated by a sense of responsibility to uphold ethical principles. It's worth noting that Kohlberg believed that few people actually reached this stage, which he saw as the highest stage of moral development.

Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development's Heinz Dilemma

Consider the following moral dilemma. A man named Heinz has a wife dying of a rare cancer. Heinz learns that a local chemist has invented a new drug that might save his wife's life. But he can’t afford the drug. Although he tries to borrow money from his friends and family, the amount is still insufficient. The chemist is not ready to lower the price either. After trying everything he could think of without success, Heinz breaks into the chemist’s office and steals the drug. Was this the right thing to do? 

Here is an example of how an individual may behave at each stage in Kohlberg's Stages:

Obedience and Punishment Stage 1 : An individual may say that Heinz should not steal the drug because stealing is wrong, and he could get arrested.

Self-Interest Stage 2 : An individual may say that Heinz should steal the drug to save his wife because he is important to him, and he would want others to do the same for him if he were in a similar situation.

Conformity Stage 3 : An individual may say that Heinz should steal the drug because he will be viewed as a good husband and respected by others for doing whatever he can to save his wife.

Law and Order Stage 4 : An individual may say that Heinz should not steal the drug because it's against the law, and breaking the law would undermine social order and respect for authority.

Social Contract Stage 5 : An individual may say that Heinz should steal the drug because the right to life and the principle of fairness outweigh the property rights of the pharmacist who owns the drug.

Universal Ethical Principles Stage 6 : An individual may say that Heinz should steal the drug because it's the right thing to do, even if it means breaking the law and risking punishment. They may also argue that the ethical principle of valuing human life is more important than any legal or social norm.

Heinz’s dilemma is a famous example used by Lawrence Kohlberg to assess moral developmental levels. 

Is Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development Theory Still Relevant Today?

Today, people reference Kohlberg's moral development stages when discussing communication, debate, and relating to others. But it's not always accepted in these discussions. 

Take this one Reddit user's take on the Jordan Peterson subreddit : 

"This is one psychologist's take on morality. It uses mortality, ethics and justice interchangeably, and hence lacks cohesion. Which is to be expected as morality is a deeply philosophical topic. It makes sense that a psychologist would have this sort of approach (which everyone acknowledges is just a reformatting of Jean Piaget's stages of childhood development).

I think Maslow's heiarchy of needs would have been a better map, looking at the general requirements in becoming moral, rather than treating morality as an ultimate ontological fact.

To put it more simplistically; knowing what people need to become moral - has more value, than judging others by their current stage of moral development as this chart seems to do.

Either way, systematizing morality may not be the smartest idea. Better to pursue ethics."

With its detailed delineation of children’s moral development, Kohlberg's theory has significantly impacted psychology and education. However, like many pioneering theories, aspects of Kohlberg's framework have been critiqued. Notably, Carol Gilligan , an ethicist and once Kohlberg’s research assistant, presented a key critique. She argued that Kohlberg's stages of moral development were male-centric and might not adequately represent moral reasoning in women.

Gilligan proposed that while men tend to have a justice-based perspective rooted in fairness, women more often adopt a care-based perspective, emphasizing interconnectedness and relationships. In her view, moral development should be understood with these different orientations, suggesting that morality isn't a one-size-fits-all concept but is influenced by gendered socialization and perspectives.

Criticisms of Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development

Kohlberg’s theory has been largely criticized for its gender bias toward the white male American population. For his experiment, Kohlberg interviewed 72 boys in suburban Chicago between 10 and 16 years old. His research was, therefore, inevitably influenced by upper-middle-class male values and perspectives. 

What’s more, Kohlberg’s theory does not consider the role cultural differences might play in the development of moral reasoning. For example, Western cultures may have different moral philosophies than societies that give more importance to the community than personal rights. 

Questions about Age

Some researchers have had doubts about Kohlberg’s general conclusions after he questioned whether older children and adolescents could attain the latest stages of moral reasoning. Some recent studies have shown that children as young as six can already understand vague concepts of universal ethical principles. 

Kohlberg did not always tailor his experiments to present dilemmas relevant to the participant's experiences. The Heinz story might not be relatable to individuals who have never been married. As a result, Kohlberg’s findings might have been different if the situations the participants were asked to analyze were more age-appropriate. 

Lastly, Kohlberg’s theory suggests that certain types of moral reasoning are superior to others. Kohlberg supposes that justice is the most fundamental moral principle. He has been reproached for emphasizing justice while overlooking other values, such as compassion and care for others.

Related posts:

• Lawrence Kohlberg (Psychologist Biography)
• Piaget's Theory of Moral Development (4 Stages + Examples)
• Erikson’s Stages of Psychosocial Development
• 40+ Famous Psychologists (Images + Biographies)
• 53+ Deviance Examples in Sociology (Definition + Theories)

Reference this article:

About The Author

Developmental Psychology:

Developmental Psychology

Erikson's Psychosocial Stages

Trust vs Mistrust

Autonomy vs Shame

Initiative vs Guilt

Industry vs inferiority

Identity vs Confusion

Intimacy vs Isolation

Generativity vs Stagnation

Integrity vs Despair

Attachment Styles

Avoidant Attachment

Anxious Attachment

Secure Attachment

Lawrence Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development

Piaget's Cognitive Development

Sensorimotor Stage

Object Permanence

Preoperational Stage

Concrete Operational Stage

Formal Operational Stage

Unconditional Positive Regard

Birth Order

Zone of Proximal Development

PracticalPie.com is a participant in the Amazon Associates Program. As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow Us On:

Youtube Facebook Instagram X/Twitter

Psychology Resources

Developmental

Personality

Relationships

Psychologists

Serial Killers

Psychology Tests

Personality Quiz

Memory Test

Depression test

Type A/B Personality Test

© PracticalPsychology. All rights reserved

Privacy Policy | Terms of Use

Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

Key Takeaways

• Lawrence Kohlberg formulated a theory asserting that individuals progress through six distinct stages of moral reasoning from infancy to adulthood.
• He grouped these stages into three broad categories of moral reasoning, pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional. Each level is associated with increasingly complex stages of moral development.
• Kohlberg suggested that people move through these stages in a fixed order and that moral understanding is linked to cognitive development . 

Heinz Dilemma

Lawrence Kohlberg (1958) agreed with Piaget’s (1932) theory of moral development in principle but wanted to develop his ideas further.

He used Piaget’s storytelling technique to tell people stories involving moral dilemmas.  In each case, he presented a choice to be considered, for example, between the rights of some authority and the needs of some deserving individual unfairly treated.

After presenting people with various moral dilemmas, Kohlberg categorized their responses into different stages of moral reasoning.

Using children’s responses to a series of moral dilemmas, Kohlberg established that the reasoning behind the decision was a greater indication of moral development than the actual answer.

One of Kohlberg’s best-known stories (1958) concerns Heinz, who lived somewhere in Europe.

Heinz’s wife was dying from a particular type of cancer. Doctors said a new drug might save her. The drug had been discovered by a local chemist, and the Heinz tried desperately to buy some, but the chemist was charging ten times the money it cost to make the drug, and this was much more than the Heinz could afford. Heinz could only raise half the money, even after help from family and friends. He explained to the chemist that his wife was dying and asked if he could have the drug cheaper or pay the rest of the money later. The chemist refused, saying that he had discovered the drug and was going to make money from it. The husband was desperate to save his wife, so later that night he broke into the chemist’s and stole the drug. Should Heinz have broken into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?

Kohlberg asked a series of questions such as:

• Should Heinz have stolen the drug?
• Would it change anything if Heinz did not love his wife?
• What if the person dying was a stranger, would it make any difference?
• Should the police arrest the chemist for murder if the woman dies?

By studying the answers from children of different ages to these questions, Kohlberg hoped to discover how moral reasoning changed as people grew older.

The sample comprised 72 Chicago boys aged 10–16 years, 58 of whom were followed up at three-yearly intervals for 20 years (Kohlberg, 1984).

Each boy was given a 2-hour interview based on the ten dilemmas. Kohlberg was interested not in whether the boys judged the action right or wrong but in the reasons for the decision. He found that these reasons tended to change as the children got older.

Kohlberg identified three levels of moral reasoning: preconventional, conventional, and postconventional. Each level has two sub-stages.

People can only pass through these levels in the order listed. Each new stage replaces the reasoning typical of the earlier stage. Not everyone achieves all the stages. 

Disequilibrium plays a crucial role in Kohlberg’s stages of moral development. A child encountering a moral issue may recognize limitations in their current reasoning approach, often prompted by exposure to others’ viewpoints. Improvements in perspective-taking are key to progressing through Kohlberg’s stages of moral development. As children mature, they increasingly understand issues from others’ viewpoints. For instance, a child at the preconventional level typically perceives an issue primarily in terms of personal consequences. In contrast, a child at the conventional level tends to consider the perspectives of others more substantially.

Level 1 – Preconventional Morality

Preconventional morality is the first level of moral development, lasting until approximately age 8. During this level, children accept the authority (and moral code) of others. 

Preconventional morality is when people follow rules because they don’t want to get in trouble or they want to get a reward. This level of morality is mostly based on what authority figures like parents or teachers tell you to do rather than what you think is right or wrong.

Authority is outside the individual, and children often make moral decisions based on the physical consequences of actions.

For example, if an action leads to punishment, it must be bad; if it leads to a reward, it must be good.

So, people at this level don’t have their own personal sense of right and wrong yet. They think that something is good if they get rewarded for it and bad if they get punished for it.

For example, if you get candy for behaving, you think you were good, but if you get a scolding for misbehaving, you think you were bad.

At the preconventional level, children don’t have a personal code of morality. Instead, moral decisions are shaped by the standards of adults and the consequences of following or breaking their rules.

Stage 1. Obedience and Punishment Orientation . The child/individual is good to avoid being punished. If a person is punished, they must have done wrong.

Stage 2. Individualism and Exchange . At this stage, children recognize that there is not just one right view handed down by the authorities. Different individuals have different viewpoints.

Level 2 – Conventional Morality

Conventional morality is the adolescent phase of moral development focused on societal norms and external expectations to discern right from wrong, often grounded in tradition, cultural practices, or established codes of conduct.

We internalize the moral standards of valued adult role models at the conventional level (most adolescents and adults).

Authority is internalized but not questioned, and reasoning is based on the group’s norms to which the person belongs.

A social system that stresses the responsibilities of relationships and social order is seen as desirable and must influence our view of right and wrong.

So, people who follow conventional morality believe that it’s important to follow society’s rules and expectations to maintain order and prevent problems.

For example, refusing to cheat on a test is a part of conventional morality because cheating can harm the academic system and create societal problems.

Stage 3. Good Interpersonal Relationships . The child/individual is good to be seen as being a good person by others. Therefore, answers relate to the approval of others.

Stage 4. Law and Order Morality . The child/individual becomes aware of the wider rules of society, so judgments concern obeying the rules to uphold the law and avoid guilt.

Level 3 – Postconventional Morality

Postconventional morality is the third level of moral development and is characterized by an individual’s understanding of universal ethical principles.

Postconventional morality is when people decide based on what they think is right rather than just following the rules of society. This means that people at this level of morality have their own ethical principles and values and don’t just do what society tells them to do.

At this level, people think about what is fair, what is just, and what values are important.

What is considered morally acceptable in any given situation is determined by what is the response most in keeping with these principles.

They also think about how their choices might affect others and try to make good decisions for everyone, not just themselves.

Values are abstract and ill-defined but might include: the preservation of life at all costs and the importance of human dignity. Individual judgment is based on self-chosen principles, and moral reasoning is based on individual rights and justice.

According to Kohlberg, this level of moral reasoning is as far as most people get.

Only 10-15% are capable of abstract thinking necessary for stage 5 or 6 (post-conventional morality). That is to say, most people take their moral views from those around them, and only a minority think through ethical principles for themselves.

Stage 5. Social Contract and Individual Rights . The child/individual becomes aware that while rules/laws might exist for the good of the greatest number, there are times when they will work against the interest of particular individuals. The issues are not always clear-cut. For example, in Heinz’s dilemma, the protection of life is more important than breaking the law against stealing.

Stage 6. Universal Principles . People at this stage have developed their own set of moral guidelines, which may or may not fit the law. The principles apply to everyone. E.g., human rights, justice, and equality.  The person will be prepared to act to defend these principles even if it means going against the rest of society in the process and having to pay the consequences of disapproval and or imprisonment. Kohlberg doubted few people had reached this stage.

Problems with Kohlberg’s Methods

1. the dilemmas are artificial (i.e., they lack ecological validity).

Most dilemmas are unfamiliar to most people (Rosen, 1980). For example, it is all very well in the Heinz dilemma, asking subjects whether Heinz should steal the drug to save his wife.

However, Kohlberg’s subjects were aged between 10 and 16. They have never been married, and never been placed in a situation remotely like the one in the story.

How should they know whether Heinz should steal the drug?

2. The sample is biased

Kohlberg’s (1969) theory suggested males more frequently progress beyond stage four in moral development, implying females lacked moral reasoning skills.

His research assistant, Carol Gilligan, disputed this, who argued that women’s moral reasoning differed, not deficient.

She criticized Kohlberg’s theory for focusing solely on upper-class white males, arguing women value interpersonal connections. For instance, women often oppose theft in the Heinz dilemma due to potential repercussions, such as separation from his wife if Heinz is imprisoned.

Gilligan (1982) conducted new studies interviewing both men and women, finding women more often emphasized care, relationships and context rather than abstract rules. Gilligan argued that Kohlberg’s theory overlooked this relational “different voice” in morality.

According to Gilligan (1977), because Kohlberg’s theory was based on an all-male sample, the stages reflect a male definition of morality (it’s androcentric).

Men’s morality is based on abstract principles of law and justice, while women’s is based on principles of compassion and care.

Further, the gender bias issue raised by Gilligan is a reminder of the significant gender debate still present in psychology, which, when ignored, can greatly impact the results obtained through psychological research.

3. The dilemmas are hypothetical (i.e., they are not real)

Kohlberg’s approach to studying moral reasoning relied heavily on his semi-structured moral judgment interview. Participants were presented with hypothetical moral dilemmas, and their justifications were analyzed to determine their stage of moral reasoning.

Some critiques of Kohlberg’s method are that it lacks ecological validity, removes reasoning from real-life contexts, and defines morality narrowly in terms of justice reasoning.

Psychologists concur with Kohlberg’s moral development theory, yet emphasize the difference between moral reasoning and behavior.

What we claim we’d do in a hypothetical situation often differs from our actions when faced with the actual circumstance. In essence, our actions might not align with our proclaimed values.

In a real situation, what course of action a person takes will have real consequences – and sometimes very unpleasant ones for themselves. Would subjects reason in the same way if they were placed in a real situation? We don’t know.

The fact that Kohlberg’s theory is heavily dependent on an individual’s response to an artificial dilemma questions the validity of the results obtained through this research.

People may respond very differently to real-life situations that they find themselves in than they do to an artificial dilemma presented to them in the comfort of a research environment.

4. Poor research design

How Kohlberg carried out his research when constructing this theory may not have been the best way to test whether all children follow the same sequence of stage progression.

His research was cross-sectional , meaning that he interviewed children of different ages to see their moral development level.

A better way to see if all children follow the same order through the stages would be to conduct longitudinal research on the same children.

However, longitudinal research on Kohlberg’s theory has since been carried out by Colby et al. (1983), who tested 58 male participants of Kohlberg’s original study.

She tested them six times in 27 years and supported Kohlberg’s original conclusion, which is that we all pass through the stages of moral development in the same order.

Contemporary research employs more diverse methods beyond Kohlberg’s interview approach, such as narrative analysis, to study moral experience. These newer methods aim to understand moral reasoning and development within authentic contexts and experiences.

• Tappan and colleagues (1996) promote a narrative approach that examines how individuals construct stories and identities around moral experiences. This draws from the sociocultural tradition of examining identity in context. Tappan argues narrative provides a more contextualized understanding of moral development.
• Colby and Damon’s (1992) empirical research uses in-depth life story interviews to study moral exemplars – people dedicated to moral causes. Instead of hypothetical dilemmas, they ask participants to describe real moral challenges and commitments. Their goal is to respect exemplars as co-investigators of moral meaning-making.
• Walker and Pitts’ (1995) studies use open-ended interviews asking people to discuss real-life moral dilemmas and reflect on the moral domain in their own words. This elicits more naturalistic conceptions of morality compared to Kohlberg’s abstract decontextualized approach.

Problems with Kohlberg’s Theory

1. are there distinct stages of moral development.

Kohlberg claims there are, but the evidence does not always support this conclusion.

For example, a person who justified a decision based on principled reasoning in one situation (postconventional morality stage 5 or 6) would frequently fall back on conventional reasoning (stage 3 or 4) with another story.

In practice, it seems that reasoning about right and wrong depends more on the situation than on general rules. Moreover, individuals do not always progress through the stages, and Rest (1979) found that one in fourteen slipped backward.

The evidence for distinct stages of moral development looks very weak. Some would argue that behind the theory is a culturally biased belief in the superiority of American values over those of other cultures and societies.

Gilligan (1982) did not dismiss developmental psychology or morality. She acknowledged that children undergo moral development in stages and even praised Kohlberg’s stage logic as “brilliant” (Jorgensen, 2006, p. 186). However, she preferred Erikson’s model over the more rigid Piagetian stages.

While Gilligan supported Kohlberg’s stage theory as rational, she expressed discomfort with its structural descriptions that lacked context.

She also raised concerns about the theory’s universality, pointing out that it primarily reflected Western culture (Jorgensen, 2006, pp. 187-188).

Neo-Kohlbergian Schema Model

Rest and colleagues (199) have developed a theoretical model building on but moving beyond Kohlberg’s stage-based approach to moral development. Their model outlines four components of moral behavior: moral sensitivity, moral judgment, moral motivation, and moral character.

For the moral judgment component, Rest et al. propose that individuals use moral schemas rather than progress through discrete stages of moral reasoning.

Schemas are generalized knowledge structures that help us interpret information and situations. An individual can have multiple schemas available to make sense of moral issues, rather than being constrained to a single developmental stage.

Some examples of moral schemas proposed by Rest and colleagues include:

• Personal Interest Schema – focused on individual interests and preferences
• Maintaining Norms Schema – emphasizes following rules and norms
• Postconventional Schema – considers moral ideals and principles

Rather than viewing development as movement to higher reasoning stages, the neo-Kohlbergian approach sees moral growth as acquiring additional, more complex moral schemas. Lower schemas are not replaced, but higher order moral schemas become available to complement existing ones.

The schema concept attempts to address critiques of the stage model, such as its rigidity and lack of context sensitivity. Using schemas allows for greater flexibility and integration of social factors into moral reasoning.

2. Does moral judgment match moral behavior?

Kohlberg never claimed that there would be a one-to-one correspondence between thinking and acting (what we say and what we do), but he does suggest that the two are linked.

However, Bee (1994) suggests that we also need to take into account of:

a) habits that people have developed over time. b) whether people see situations as demanding their participation. c) the costs and benefits of behaving in a particular way. d) competing motive such as peer pressure, self-interest and so on.

Overall, Bee points out that moral behavior is only partly a question of moral reasoning. It also has to do with social factors.

3. Is justice the most fundamental moral principle?

This is Kohlberg’s view. However, Gilligan (1977) suggests that the principle of caring for others is equally important. Furthermore, Kohlberg claims that the moral reasoning of males has often been in advance of that of females.

Girls are often found to be at stage 3 in Kohlberg’s system (good boy-nice girl orientation), whereas boys are more often found to be at stage 4 (Law and Order orientation). Gilligan (p. 484) replies:

“The very traits that have traditionally defined the goodness of women, their care for and sensitivity to the needs of others, are those that mark them out as deficient in moral development”.

In other words, Gilligan claims that there is a sex bias in Kohlberg’s theory. He neglects the feminine voice of compassion, love, and non-violence, which is associated with the socialization of girls.

Gilligan concluded that Kohlberg’s theory did not account for the fact that women approach moral problems from an ‘ethics of care’, rather than an ‘ethics of justice’ perspective, which challenges some of the fundamental assumptions of Kohlberg’s theory.

In contrast to Kohlberg’s impersonal “ethics of justice”, Gilligan proposed an alternative “ethics of care” grounded in compassion and responsiveness to needs within relationships (Gilligan, 1982).

Her care perspective highlights emotion, empathy and understanding over detached logic. Gilligan saw care and justice ethics as complementary moral orientations.

Walker et al. (1995) found everyday moral conflicts often revolve around relationships rather than justice; individuals describe relying more on intuition than moral reasoning in dilemmas. This raises questions about the centrality of reasoning in moral functioning.

4. Do people make rational moral decisions?

Kohlbeg’s theory emphasizes rationality and logical decision-making at the expense of emotional and contextual factors in moral decision-making.

One significant criticism is that Kohlberg’s emphasis on reason can create an image of the moral person as cold and detached from real-life situations. 

Carol Gilligan critiqued Kohlberg’s theory as overly rationalistic and not accounting for care-based morality commonly found in women. She argued for a “different voice” grounded in relationships and responsiveness to particular individuals.

The criticism suggests that by portraying moral reasoning as primarily cognitive and detached from emotional and situational factors, Kohlberg’s theory oversimplifies real-life moral decision-making, which often involves emotions, social dynamics, cultural nuances, and practical constraints.

Critics contend that his model does not adequately capture the multifaceted nature of morality in the complexities of everyday life.

Bee, H. L. (1994). Lifespan development . HarperCollins College Publishers.

Blum, L. A. (1988). Gilligan and Kohlberg: Implications for moral theory.  Ethics ,  98 (3), 472-491.

Colby, A., Kohlberg, L., Gibbs, J., & Lieberman, M. (1983). A longitudinal study of moral judgment. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development , 48 (1-2, Serial No. 200). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Day, J. M., & Tappan, M. B. (1996). The narrative approach to moral development: From the epistemic subject to dialogical selves.  Human Development ,  39 (2), 67-82.

Gilligan, C. (1977). In a different voice: Women’s conceptions of self and of morality. Harvard Educational Review , 47(4), 481-517.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice . Harvard University Press.

Gilligan, C. (1995). Hearing the difference: Theorizing connection. Hypatia, 10 (2), 120-127.

Jorgensen, G. (2006). Kohlberg and Gilligan: duet or duel?.  Journal of Moral Education ,  35 (2), 179-196.

Kohlberg, L. (1958). The Development of Modes of Thinking and Choices in Years 10 to 16. Ph. D. Dissertation , University of Chicago.

Kohlberg, L. (1984). The Psychology of Moral Development: The Nature and Validity of Moral Stages (Essays on Moral Development, Volume 2) . Harper & Row

Piaget, J. (1932). The moral judgment of the child . London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co.

Rest, J. R. (1979). Development in judging moral issues . University of Minnesota Press.

Rosen, B. (1980). Moral dilemmas and their treatment. In, Moral development, moral education, and Kohlberg. B. Munsey (Ed). (1980), pp. 232-263. Birmingham, Alabama: Religious Education Press.

Walker, L. J., Pitts, R. C., Hennig, K. H., & Matsuba, M. K. (1995). Reasoning about morality and real-life moral problems.

Further Information

• BBC Radio 4: The Heinz Dilemma
• The Science of Morality
• Piaget’s Theory of Moral Development

What is an example of moral development theory in real life?

An example is a student who witnesses cheating on an important exam. The student is faced with the dilemma of whether to report the cheating or keep quiet.

A person at the pre-conventional level of moral development might choose not to report cheating because they fear the consequences or because they believe that everyone cheats.

A person at the conventional level might report cheating because they believe it is their duty to uphold the rules and maintain fairness in the academic environment.

A person at the post-conventional level might weigh the ethical implications of both options and make a decision based on their principles and values, such as honesty, fairness, and integrity, even if it may come with negative consequences.

This example demonstrates how moral development theory can help us understand how individuals reason about ethical dilemmas and make decisions based on their moral reasoning.

What are the examples of stage 6 universal principles?

Stage 6 of Kohlberg’s moral development theory, also known as the Universal Ethical Principles stage, involves moral reasoning based on self-chosen ethical principles that are comprehensive and consistent. Examples might include:

Equal human rights : Someone at this stage would believe in the fundamental right of all individuals to life, liberty, and fair treatment. They would advocate for and act according to these rights, even if it meant opposing laws or societal norms.

Justice for all : A person at this stage believes in justice for all individuals and would strive to ensure fairness in all situations. For example, they might campaign against a law they believe to be unjust, even if it is widely accepted by society.

Non-violence : A commitment to non-violence could be a universal principle for some at this stage. For instance, they might choose peaceful protest or civil disobedience in the face of unjust laws or societal practices.

Social contract : People at this stage might also strongly believe in the social contract, wherein individuals willingly sacrifice some freedoms for societal benefits. However, they also understand that these societal norms can be challenged and changed if they infringe upon the universal rights of individuals.

Respect for human dignity and worth : Individuals at this stage view each person as possessing inherent value, and this belief guides their actions and judgments. They uphold the dignity and worth of every individual, regardless of social status or circumstance.

What is the Kohlberg’s Heinz dilemma?

The Heinz dilemma is a moral question proposed by Kohlberg in his studies on moral development. It involves a man named Heinz who considers stealing a drug he cannot afford to save his dying wife, prompting discussion on the moral implications and justifications of his potential actions.

Moral Development

• Reference work entry
• Cite this reference work entry

• Stefanie Dorough 3  

1321 Accesses

3 Citations

Development of moral sense ; Ethics ; Moral growth ; Moral maturation

Moral development refers to the process whereby people form a progressive sense of what is right and wrong, proper and improper. As implied by the term development, human moral sense is commonly seen to involve a movement from simple and finite definitions of right and wrong to more complex ways of distinguishing right from wrong.

Description

Throughout history, the topic of moral development has been taken up by many theologians, scientists, and philosophers. Western philosophy provides three common platforms for thinking about human morality [ 9 ]. Christianity provides the doctrine of original sin, which holds that all human beings are born with a proclivity towards concupiscence. That is to say, without salvific intervention, all people will naturally behave selfishly, improperly, without regard for the good of others [ 5 ]. The second philosophical platform is that proposed by Swiss-born French...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Google Scholar  

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1990). Selective activation and disengagement of motor control. Journal of Social Issues, 46 , 27–46.

Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of moral thought and action. In W. M. Kurtines & J. L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior and development, Volume 1: Theory . Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Chadwick, H. (1991). Saint Augustine: Confessions . New York: Oxford University Press.

Freud, S. (1933 [1932]). New introductory lectures in psychoanalysis. In The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (J. Strachey, Trans., Vol. 22, pp. 112–135). London: Hogarth Press.

Gilligan, C. (1977). In a different voice: Women’s conceptions of self and of morality. Harvard Educational Review, 47 , 481–517.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Hergenhahn, B. R. (1992). An introduction to the history of psychology (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.

Hergenhahn, B. R. (2001). An introduction to the history of psychology (4th ed.) Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Killen, M., Pisacane, K., Lee-Kim, J., & Ardila-Rey, A. (2001). Fairness or stereotypies? Young children’s priorities when evaluating group exclusion or inclusion. Developmental Psychology, 37 , 587–596.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Kochanska, G., Casey, R., & Fukumoto, A. (1995). Toddlers’ sensitivity to standard violations. Child Development, 66 , 643–656.

Kohlberg, L. (1967). Moral and religious education in the public schools: A developmental view. In T. R. Sizer (Ed.), Religion and public education . Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Kohlberg, L. (1971). From is to ought. In T. Michel (Ed.), Cognitive development and epistemology . New York: Academic.

Kohlberg, L. (1984). The psychology of moral development . San Francisco: Harper and Row.

Lewis, M. (2000). Self-conscious emotions: Embarrassment, pride, shame, and guilt. In M. Lewis & J. Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 563–573). New York: Guilford Press.

Locke, J. (1690). An essay concerning human understanding . London: J. M. Dent.

Piaget, J. (1965). The moral judgment of the child . New York: Free Press.

Piaget, J. (1973). The child and reality . New York: Viking.

Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child . New York: Basic Books.

Smetana, J., & Braeges, J. (1990). The development of toddler’s moral and conventional judgments. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 36 , 329–346.

Smetana, J. G. (1981a). Preschool children’s conception of moral and social rules. Child Development, 52 , 1333–1336.

Smetana, J. G. (1981b). Parenting and the development of social knowledge reconceptualized: A social domain analysis. In J. Grusec & L. Kuczynski (Eds.), Parenting and children’s internalization of values (pp. 162–192). New York: Wiley.

Theimer, C., Killen, M., & Stangor, C. (2001). Preschool children’s evaluations of exclusion in gender-stereotypic contexts. Developmental Psychology, 37 , 18–27.

Thomas, R. M. (1997). Moral developmental theories – Secular and religious: A comparative studies . Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press.

Thompson, R. A. (2006). The development of the person: Social understanding, relationships, conscience, self. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional and personality development . Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Van Herick, J. (1982). Freud on femininity and faith . Berkley: University of California Press.

Wulff, D. (1997). Psychology of religion (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Psychology, Oklahoma State University,  , USA

Stefanie Dorough

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Neurology, Learning and Behavior Center, 230 South 500 East, Suite 100, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84102, USA

Sam Goldstein Ph.D.

Department of Psychology MS 2C6, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, 22030, USA

Jack A. Naglieri Ph.D. ( Professor of Psychology ) ( Professor of Psychology )

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Dorough, S. (2011). Moral Development. In: Goldstein, S., Naglieri, J.A. (eds) Encyclopedia of Child Behavior and Development. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-79061-9_1831

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-79061-9_1831

Publisher Name : Springer, Boston, MA

Print ISBN : 978-0-387-77579-1

Online ISBN : 978-0-387-79061-9

eBook Packages : Behavioral Science Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Share this entry

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Home — Essay Samples — Life — Life Experiences — Moral Development

Moral Development Essays

The parent's role in the development of their children morally, analysis and evaluation of four moral development theories, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

Human Moral Development and The Relativist Traditions

The impact of ecological systems by bronfenbrenner, theory of cognitive development by piaget and theory of moral development by kohlberg's in a child called "it," a book by dave pelzer, how socioemotional development impacts identity and moral development, moral issue and arguments against pornography, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

The Different Adverse Effects of Abortion

The environment in which i was raised: a reflection, exploring the decline of moral values in youth, analysis of hsun tzu's encouraging learning, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

The Evolution of Moral Values in Today's Youth

Religion in schools, degradation of moral values in modern youth, mencius and chinese civilization, discovering how is moral character developed, the importance of guilt, exploring how can moral character be developed, how can moral character be developed: kant's moral dilemma, how is moral character developed: a study on ethics, how is moral character developed: the boys brigade case, how can moral character be developed: personal values impact, receiving is better than giving, relevant topics.

• Overcoming Challenges
• Life Changing Experience
• Professionalism
• Personal Growth and Development
• Expectations
• Benefits of Volunteering

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Moral Development

Influences on moral development.

Like most aspects of development, influencing factors are multifaceted. Moral development is strongly influenced by interpersonal factors, such as family, peers, and culture. Intrapersonal factors also impact moral development, such as cognitive changes, emotions, and even neurodevelopment.

Interpersonal Influences

Children’s interactions with caregivers and peers have been shown to influence their development of moral understanding and behavior. Researchers have addressed the influence of interpersonal interactions on children’s moral development from two primary perspectives: socialization/internalization (Grusec & Goodnow, 1994; Kochanska & Askan, 1995; Kochanska, Askan, & Koenig, 1995) and social domain theory (Turiel, 1983; Smetana 2006). Research from the social domain theory perspective focuses on how children actively distinguish moral from conventional behavior based in part based on the responses of parents, teachers, and peers (Smetana, 1997). Adults tend to respond to children’s moral transgressions (e.g., hitting or stealing) by drawing the child’s attention to the effect of his or her action on others and doing so consistently across various contexts.

In contrast, adults are more likely to respond to children’s conventional misdeeds (e.g., wearing a hat in the classroom, eating spaghetti with fingers) by reminding children about specific rules and doing so only in certain contexts (e.g., at school but not at home) (Smetana, 1984; 1985). Peers respond mainly to moral but not conventional transgressions and demonstrate emotional distress (e.g., crying or yelling) when they are the victim of moral but not conventional transgressions (Smetana, 1984). Children then use these different cues to help determine whether behaviors are morally or conventionally wrong.

Research from a socialization/internalization perspective focuses on how adults pass down standards of behavior to children through parenting techniques and why children do or do not internalize those values (Grusec & Goodnow, 1994; Kochanska & Askan, 1995). From this perspective, moral development involves children’s increasing compliance with and internalization of adult rules, requests, and standards of behavior. Using these definitions, researchers find that parenting behaviors vary in the extent to which they encourage children’s internalization of values and that these effects depend partially on child attributes, such as age and temperament (Grusec & Goodnow, 1994). For instance, Kochanska (1997) showed that gentle parental discipline best promotes conscience development in temperamentally fearful children. However, the same parental responsiveness and a mutually responsive parent-child orientation best promote conscience development in temperamentally fearless children. These parental influences exert their effects through multiple pathways, including increasing children’s experience of moral emotions (e.g., guilt, empathy) and their self-identification as moral individuals (Kochanska, 2010).

Moral Development in the Family

In the formation of children’s morals, no outside influence is greater than that of the family. Through punishment, reinforcement, and both direct and indirect teaching, families instill morals in children and help them to develop beliefs that reflect the values of their culture. Although families’ contributions to children’s moral development are broad, there are particular ways in which morals are most effectively conveyed and learned.

Families establish rules for right and wrong behavior, which are maintained through positive reinforcement and punishment. Positive reinforcement is the reward for good behavior and helps children learn that certain actions are encouraged above others. Punishment, by contrast, helps to deter children from engaging in bad behaviors, and from an early age helps children to understand that actions have consequences. This system additionally helps children to make decisions about how to act, as they begin to consider the outcomes of their behavior.

The notion of what is fair is one of the central moral lessons that children learn in the family context. Families set boundaries on the distribution of resources, such as food and living spaces, and allow members different privileges based on age, gender, and employment. The way in which a family determines what is fair affects children’s development of ideas about rights and entitlements, and also influences their notions of sharing, reciprocity, and respect.

Personal Balance

Through understanding principles of fairness, justice, and social responsibilities, children learn to find a balance between their own needs and wants and the interests of the greater social environment. By placing limits on their desires, children benefit from a greater sense of love, security, and shared identity. At the same time, this connectedness helps children to refine their own moral system by providing them with a reference for understanding right and wrong.

Social Roles

In the family environment, children come to consider their actions not only in terms of justice but also in terms of emotional needs. Children learn the value of social support from their families and develop motivations based on kindness, generosity, and empathy, rather than on only personal needs and desires. By learning to care for the interests and well-being of their family, children develop concern for society as a whole.

Morality and Culture

The role of culture on moral development is an important topic that raises fundamental questions about what is universal and what is culturally specific regarding morality and moral development. Many research traditions have examined this question, with social-cognitive and structural-developmental positions theorizing that morality has a universal requirement to it, drawing from moral philosophy. The expectation is that if morality exists, it has to do with those values that are generalizable across groups and cultures. Alternatively, relativistic cultural positions have been put forth mostly by socialization theories that focus on how cultures transmit values rather than what values are applied across groups and individuals.

As an example of some of the debates, Shweder, Mahapatra, and Miller (1987) argued for moral relativism or the notion that different cultures defined the boundaries of morality differently. In contrast, Turiel and Perkins (2004) argued for the universality of morality, focusing largely on evidence throughout the history of resistance movements that fight for justice through the affirmation of individual self-determination rights. In an update on the debate between moral relativism and moral universality, Miller (2006) provides a thoughtful review of the cultural variability of moral priorities. Miller argues that rather than variability in what individuals consider moral (fairness, justice, rights), there is cultural variability in the priority given to moral considerations (e.g., the importance of prosocial helping). Wainryb (2006), in contrast, reviews extensive literature that has demonstrated that children in diverse cultures such as the U.S., India, China, Turkey, and Brazil share a pervasive view about upholding fairness and the wrongfulness of inflicting harm on others. Cultures vary in terms of conventions and customs, but not principles of fairness, which appear to emerge very early in development, before socialization influences. Wainryb (1991; 1993) shows that many apparent cultural differences in moral judgments are actually due to different informational assumptions or beliefs about the way the world works. When people hold different beliefs about the effects of actions or the status of different groups of people, their judgments about the harmfulness or fairness of behaviors often differ, even when they are applying the same moral principles.

Another powerful socializing mechanism by which values are transmitted is religion, which is for many inextricably linked to cultural identity. Nucci and Turiel (1993) assessed individuals’ reactions to dictates from God, and the distinctions in their reactions to God’s moral (e.g., stealing) and conventional (e.g., day of worship) dictates. One explicit manner in which societies can socialize individuals is through moral education. Solomon and colleagues (1988) present evidence from a study that integrated both direct instruction and guided reflection approaches to moral development, with evidence for resultant increases in spontaneous prosocial behavior. Finally, studies of moral development and cultural issues cover many subtopics. For instance, a recent review of studies examining social exclusion identifies cultural similarities in the evaluation of exclusion across a range of societies and cultures (Hitti, Mulvey & Killen, 2011).

Intrapersonal Influences

Moral questions tend to be emotionally charged issues that evoke strong affective responses. Consequently, emotions likely play an important role in moral development. However, there is currently little consensus among theorists on how emotions influence moral development. Psychoanalytic theory, founded by Freud, emphasizes the role of guilt in repressing primal drives. Research on prosocial behavior has focused on how emotions motivate individuals to engage in moral or altruistic acts. Social-cognitive development theories have recently begun to examine how emotions influence moral judgments. Intuitionist theorists assert that moral judgments can be reduced to immediate, instinctive emotional responses elicited by moral dilemmas.

Research on socioemotional development and prosocial development has identified several “moral emotions,” which are believed to motivate moral behavior and influence moral development (Eisenberg, 2000, for a review). The primary emotions consistently linked with moral development are guilt, shame, empathy, and sympathy. Guilt has been defined as “an agitation-based emotion or painful feeling of regret that is aroused when the actor causes, anticipates causing or is associated with an aversive event” (Fergusen & Stegge, 1998). Shame is often used synonymously with guilt but implies a more passive and dejected response to a perceived wrong. Guilt and shame are considered “self-conscious” emotions because they are of primary importance to an individual’s self-evaluation.

In contrast to guilt and shame, empathy and sympathy are considered other-oriented moral emotions. Empathy is commonly defined as an affective response produced by the apprehension or comprehension of another’s emotional state, which mirrors the other’s affective state. Similarly, sympathy is defined as an emotional response produced by the apprehension or comprehension of another’s emotional state, which does not mirror the other’s affect but instead causes one to express concern or sorrow for the other (Eisenberg, 2000).

The relation between moral action and moral emotions has been extensively researched. Very young children have been found to express feelings of care, and empathy towards others, showing concerns for other’s well being (Eisenberg, Spinard, & Sadovsky, 2006). Research has consistently demonstrated that when empathy is induced in an individual, he or she is more likely to engage in subsequent prosocial behavior (Batson 1998; Eisenberg, 200 for review). Additionally, other research has examined emotions of shame and guilt concerning children’s emphatic and prosocial behavior (Zahn-Waxler & Robinson, 1995).

While emotions serve as information for children in their interpretations about the moral consequences of acts, the role of emotions in children’s moral judgments has only recently been investigated. Some approaches to studying emotions in moral judgments come from the perspective that emotions are automatic intuitions that define morality (Greene, 2001; Haidt, 2001). Other approaches emphasize the role of emotions as evaluative feedback that help children interpret acts and consequences (Turiel & Killen, 2010). Research has shown that children attribute different emotional outcomes to actors involved in moral transgressions than those involved in conventional transgressions (Arsenio, 1988; Arsenio & Fleiss, 1996). Emotions may help individuals prioritize among different information and possibilities and reduce information processing demands in order to narrow the scope of the reasoning process (Lemerise & Arsenio, 2000). In addition, Malti, Gummerum, Keller, and Buchmann (2009), found individual differences in how children attribute emotions to victims and victimizers.

Link To Learning

Parenting has the largest impact on adolescent moral development. Read more here in this article, “Building Character: Moral Development in Adolescence”  from the Center for Parent and Teen Communication.

• Influences on Moral Development. Authored by : Nicole Arduini-Van Hoose. Provided by : Hudson Valley Community College. Located at : https://courses.lumenlearning.com/adolescent/chapter/influences-on-moral-development/ . License : CC BY-NC-SA: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
• Moral Development During Adolescence . Authored by : Tera Jones. Provided by : Lumen Learning. Located at : https://courses.lumenlearning.com/wm-lifespandevelopment/chapter/moral-development-during-adolescence/ . License : CC BY: Attribution
• Moral Development. Provided by : Psychology Wiki. Located at : https://psychology.wikia.org/wiki/Moral_development . License : CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike

Privacy Policy

• Narrative essay topics
• Writing a paper about freedom
• An argumentative essay synopsis
• Analytical essay writing hints
• Pro-written custom papers
• Paper topic ideas for 7th graders
• Philosophy paper writing tips
• A brilliant paper writing tutorial
• Diversity paper samples
• Analytical paper topic ideas
• Good custom writing services
• Argumentative essay ideas
• Discursive essay writing tips
• Writing a paper introducing parts
• 5-paragraph paper synopsis
• Writing a good paper conclusion
• How-to essay samples
• Sample illustration essay outlines
• Selecting persuasive essay prompts
• Sample third person descriptive essays
• Crafting a 7-paragraph comparative paper
• Getting sample free essays
• Expository essay writing: use of samples
• A guide to essay writer selection
• Crafting an essay about dogs as pets
• Creating a school visual analysis essay
• Expository essay writing hints
• AP World History essay samples
• Finding an outstanding writer
• Seeking help with homework papers
• Writing agencies specializing in Psychology
• Traits of qualified writers
• Self help groups: essay hints
• Selecting a writing company
• Hiring an essay writer
• Tips on essay about yourself
• Gun controls paper sample
• False memories essay sample
• Booker T. Washington paper sample
• A chorus line paper sample
• 12 Years A Slave essay
• Obamacare paper sample
• Manifest Destiny essay sample
• Graphic novel essay sample
• Mass murders essay example
• Drunk driving paper sample
• Rustom essay example
• Markets in Spanish America essay sample
• Death and dying practices essay sample
• Hate crimes paper example
• Gay marriage essay sample
• Abusive relationships paper template
• John Keats essay template
• Sample essay on family ecology theory
• How to manage environmental problems
• Woman suffrage
• Children and inequality
• An essay sample on autism
• A Good Man Is Hard To Find
• The choice of adoption
• The life of Davy Crockett
• Atomic theory
• Critical thinking's role
• Bilingual education
• Climate change
• Is the progress real?
• Immigration reform in the USA
• Risky aspects of communication
• Personal moral values
• Flu vaccine
• Types of papers

efficient ideas for academic essay writing

My Moral Values

Introduction.

In the context of personal character, values are intangible qualities that are regarded as worth possessing due to their usefulness, importance or desirability. Virtually all values are morally relative in the sense that a particular value may seem good and beneficial to one person and yet be outright bad or inimical to others. So, values can be moral or otherwise depending on who is making the judgment. Moral values refer to a set of positive standards and principles that tend to guide or determine how a person distinguishes right from wrong, thus regulating his behaviours and choices. Great moral values have one thing in common – they dignify, enhance and protect life for the good of all.

What determines a person’s moral values?

There are three major sources from which we derive our moral values. One of these is from society and government. The customs, cultures and traditions of society as well as the laws enacted by governments all together shape and define the moral values of individuals within the community, whether we are looking at a small town, state, nation or the global community. Events as well as cultural and legal changes inevitably result in changes in the general moral value. Another source of moral value is religion, ideology or creed. The belief system or philosophical leanings of individuals leave in them a set of codes and list of dos and don’ts which shape and concretize their sense of good and evil, right and wrong. In spite of some of its variants with contradictory showings, Christianity rises well above all other religions and philosophies in going beyond a system of dos and don’ts, emphasizing a vital relationship with God through His Son and setting moral values that clearly transcend society’s mores and man’s selfish instincts. A final source from which moral value is derived is from within one’s own self. There is an innate, instinctive tendency to, from within one’s self, distinguish right from wrong. Evidence of this is ably demonstrated by toddlers who watch their parent before going for or against an instruction. As knowledge increases and an individual grows from childhood to adulthood, he strengthens his ability to make choices between the forbidden and acceptable, kind or cruel, generous or selfish, from within his own self. This ability, though untaught, is usually modified or tamed by the earlier two sources of moral values.

My moral values have been largely influenced by my family upbringing, that is, what my parents taught me while growing up and my strong Christian faith. In addition to this, however, there is considerable contribution from my education, personal experience, my appreciation of how government works and cultural integration in our global village of diverse but same humanity. It may not be possible to list them all but the core of my moral values are represented by these few: integrity, love, courage, respect, obedience, responsibility, kindness, fairness, humility, politeness and modesty.

Moral values are only truly valuable when put into action. The essence of knowing and cultivating fine moral values is not to hold them deep within but to put them into action whenever and wherever they are required.

Essay Writing Tips

• Bad paper writing agencies
• Sociology process analysis paper ideas
• US history of religion essay template
• Italian traditions essay
• Professional paper writing help
• Opera & ballet essay example
• Choosing a good paper writer
• Volunteering essay sample
• Environment paper writing rules

Essay Topics

• Illustration paper topics
• Process paper topic ideas
• Argument essay prompts
• Arts comparative essay topics

Popular Posts

• Cheap custom paper writing agencies
• Child obesity essay example
• What makes a 5-paragraph essay
• Finding sample essay on study skills

Contribute to us as a writer. As a successful student. As our user. Leave your feedback, ideas and tips on [email protected]

© RaintreeWriting.com. All rights reserved. | 2024

Reflecting on Moral Dilemmas with Practical Wisdom

Students will develop practical wisdom by reading and reflecting on a moral dilemma with a set of guiding questions. Question sets prompt students to draw on past knowledge, understand the current context, and weigh various options up against guiding principles in order to determine next steps.

Planning For It

When you might use this practice.

• To encourage greater self-awareness
• To cultivate practical wisdom in students
• To encourage empathy
• At the start of the school year

Time Required

• Upper Elementary
• Middle School
• High School

Learning Objectives

Students will:

• Practice working effectively in groups
• Reflect on what they have learned from other students
• Practice sharing their own thoughts, feelings, and/or life stories

Additional Supports

• Making Practices Culturally Responsive
• Adapting Practices for Students with Special Needs
• Making Classrooms and Schools Trauma-Informed and Healing-Centered

Character Strengths

• Practical Wisdom

SEL Competencies

• Self-Awareness
• Social Awareness
• Relationship Skills

Mindfulness Components

• Focused Attention
• Open Awareness
• Non-Judgment

How To Do It

Reflection before the practice.

• Consider a moral dilemma that you and/or a friend may be trying to address. As you think about the actions to be taken, consider the following questions: What past knowledge might inform your response to this situation? What might a friend or person you respect do in this situation? What emotions are you experiencing and how might they be clouding your thinking about next steps? What other factors might be influencing your thinking about the situation?
• Consider the potential actions you could take and what the consequences would be. Is there a solution or action that might best meet the needs of all individuals involved? What virtues might be relevant to this situation

Instructions

Introduce students to the concept of practical wisdom by sharing the following definition with them:

“Practical wisdom refers to your ability to know what the right thing to do is , know how to do the right thing, and to have the will to actually do the right thing across various situations.”

Explain to students that practical wisdom is important because it can help them navigate difficult decisions in ways that support their longer term goals and their ability to maintain strong, positive relationships. Thus, the goal is to practice the skills that can facilitate the development of practical wisdom by reflecting on the provided questions below as they decide how to respond to a moral dilemma.

Present students with a few moral dilemma scenarios. For examples of specific dilemmas look at the following links:

• https://www.theclassroom.com/moral-dilemma-scenarios-children-8434575.html
• https://studylib.net/doc/7725442/ethical-dilemma-scenarios-for-students

Have students break up into groups. Assign a dilemma to each group, or invite students to choose one dilemma to address.

Ask each group to read the dilemma and discuss the questions from each of the three categories below:

• What lessons have your parents or teachers taught you that could help you think about how you might respond in this situation? What values have they encouraged you to develop?
• Think of your closest friends, what qualities do they display, which you admire and how might they respond to this situation?
• Have you or a close friend ever encountered a similar situation? How did you or your friend respond to the situation? What was the outcome? What did you learn from your or your friend’s experience?
• Have you ever responded to a similar situation without much thinking? Was that useful? Why might taking sometime to think through your response be helpful?
• What are some contextual factors that might influence your response?
• How might you work to process your emotions, so that they don’t override your thinking and completely sway your decision?
• Who might you turn to, to get some input on the situation? What might that person say to you?
• Consider what actions you might take, write down what would be the consequences of each of those actions for all individuals involved in the situation? How severe are the consequences? Is harm being caused?
• Are there virtues that you value which are relevant to this situation? What are they and how might they be applied?
• Take a moment to consider why each person involved is engaged in a particular behavior.
• Is there a solution or action that might best meet the needs of all individuals involved?
• What might be the impact of your decision in the short-term?
• What about in the long-term? How might you take this into account?

After the discussion, and if time permits, have each group present their dilemma to the class and discuss what they will do and why. End the activity by having students write a short reflection about what they learned through this process.

Claire Briggs, Ph.D., Middlesbrough Psychology Service, Middlesbrough Council

Reflection After the Practice

• Was there anything that surprised you as your students shared influences to their thinking and potential responses to the dilemma (e.g., cultural values that were unfamiliar to you)? How might their responses inform your capacity to better support them in developing practical wisdom?
• Have you noticed a difference in student’s behavior, particularly in their responses to moral dilemmas?

The Research Behind It

Evidence that it works.

Social cognitive theories suggest that character develops through our day-to-day lived experiences, which are stored in our brains, providing us with helpful information that informs our responses to dilemmas as they arise. Such theories suggest that giving adolescents’ opportunities to develop reflective thinking skills can increase their practical wisdom. Practical wisdom refers to one’s ability to know what the right response is at the right time, particularly when faced with difficult situations.

In one study , researchers interviewed students between the ages of 12-15 to better understand how they approach decision-making, particularly when faced with moral dilemmas. Researchers were particularly interested in understanding what kinds of thinking skills needed to be developed and practiced so that they become more internalized and intuitive to students—or how students develop “practical wisdom.”

Researchers found that there are three interrelated processes that occur as students decide how to respond to a moral dilemma. Specifically, students activate and draw on existing knowledge, they pay attention to factors within the immediate context, and they weigh consequences against guiding principles to judge the best course of action.

Why Does It Matter?

Often, teachers focus on developing virtues in students like honesty, generosity, and forgiveness. Yet, many of the decisions we face in life are complicated and can often pit virtues against each other.

For example, a student may wonder whether to tell the teacher that his friend cheated on an exam or whether to remain loyal to his friend. Practical wisdom allows students to navigate dilemmas like these more thoughtfully, helping students understand what action is best in a particular situation—for all individuals involved. Thus, as students develop practical wisdom, it will help them navigate moral dilemmas with greater attentiveness to all the factors in play so that they can make values-based decisions that are responsive to a given context and the people involved.

GGIE Online Courses for Educators

Do you want to dive deeper into the science behind our GGIE practices? Enroll in one of our online courses for educators!