Ganter 1

Cameron Ganter
Mr. Hull
Honors English II
26 February 2016
Moral Development
Our aspiring saint within is dogged not only by demons without and within, but by the
natural imperfection of time needed (Puka). This statement made by William Puka represents
the way that humans develop and act on their sense of morality or the ethics that drive the
society that one resides in. One can understand how humans develop with the knowledge of
what moral development is and the most commonly accepted theory to date, the understanding
of theories under constant change, and how one can guide themselves to strive morally. As a
human grows, his or her conception of morality is in a state of constant evolution, and constant
cognitive development.
First, one must understand what moral development is and the theory that is currently
used to explain how one morally develops. It is defined as the process of internalizing societys
rules and principles of right and wrong. Moreover, morals are an internal set of standards that a
person follows. The morals or ethics that a person develops vary greatly from person to person
depending on the environment that surrounds them. Most humans have the ability to develop
these morals and can identify right from wrong (Piotrowski 1227). While most develop correctly
there is still a small percentage of humans that are unable to develop these standards.
Sociopaths and psychopaths fall into this group. These two are typically unable to feel guilt,
unable to follow laws and social mores, and they have no regard for the rights of others (Bonn).
While there is an awareness that humans have the ability to develop morality, many
people have attempted to decipher the way that morals evolves. Jean Piaget derived two
scenarios in an attempt to serve as an example as to how morals change as one ages. In
Paigets first scenario a boy named John is called down to dinner. John opens the door to the

Ganter 2
dining room and breaks 15 glasses that he was unaware were on the other side of the door.
The second scenario involves a boy named Henry. Hernys mother instructed him not to eat the
jam in the cupboard. However, when Henrys mother leaves, he tries to take jam out of the
cupboard. Henry cannot reach the jam and instead knocks down a cup breaking it. When
asked who has acted the worst, many adults will respond with Henry since his intentions were
against rules. However children between the ages six and ten will respond with John doing the
worst since he broke more cups. Using this Piaget derived two stages of evolution (Piotrowski
1227). Soon after, Lawrence Kohlberg would expand on these scenarios with a third moral
problem. Kohlberg presented the Heinz Dilemma. A man named Heinz has a wife dying of
cancer. A chemist has a cure, however, Heinz cannot afford the drug. So Heinz breaks into the
chemists lab and steals the drug to save his wife (McLeon).
In addition to the old dilemmas Kohlberg devised a new moral choice. With this new
dilemma Kohlberg attempted to answer some questions. He asked: should Heinz have stolen
the drug, would it be different if he did not love his wife, would the police arrest the chemist if the
woman died? In Kohlbergs studies, children ages 10-16 were presented with questions on ten
dilemmas. Kohlberg would have these children take follow-up tests every three years for twenty
years. The students answers changed as they aged. With the information obtained from this
study, Kohlberg determined three levels of moral evolution, the next one only available to be
achieved when the previous level was completed. The first level is Preconvention Morality. This
level includes most children under the age of nine who have no personal moral code and are
shaped by consequences. The first stage in this level is based on obedience and punishment.
Children do well to avoid consequences. The next stage is individualism and exchange. In this
stage the child becomes aware of more than one view of what is right. After these is level two,
Conventional Morality. This level is achieved by adolescents and adults. This means that their
internal moral standards are affected by the people that they interact with. Stage three is the
first stage in level two, it is good interpersonal relationships. In this stage one will act well to

Ganter 3
improve their appearance to others. After this, stage four is focused on maintaining social order.
This means that one will act well to uphold law and avoid guilt. Kohlberg theorized that the final
level is only reached by 10-15% of people. The moral principles in this level are self-chosen.
Stage five is based on social contract and individual rights. In this stage one becomes aware
that rules exist for the good of the many. For example, Heinz steals the drug but saves his wife.
At stage six universal principles develop. This means ones own moral guidelines will develop.
An example of this is the reach for complete justice without regarding the law also known as a
vigilante (McLeon).
Even though Kohlbergs three level theory is commonly accepted, it is not perfect, similar
to many other theories presented over time. This means for hundreds of years theories have
constantly been evolving in the same way a humans view of right and wrong evolve. Many go
against Kohlbergs theory. One common statement against his theory says that the stages
describe a way of thinking, not the content that one will think about. For example children will
not lie at its most basic stage, stage one, out of fear of being caught or punished. At the same
time another child will not lie, but because they want to agree with peers, also known as stage
three. Finally a third child will not lie just to uphold the rule established to not lie, this way of
thinking is known as stage four. Kohlberg used harder issues to evaluate the stages as they
went but did not consider that one stage may not be associated with or needed to get to the
next stage (Seifert and Hoffnung 447). James Q. Wilson once said I am a bit suspicious of any
theory that says that the highest moral stage is one in which people talk like college professors
(Myers 119).
The insight into how one develops morals has challenged even ancient philosophers.
These philosophers believed that morals were teleological. Teleological means that x is what
x does well. One of the earliest and viewed as one of the greatest philosophers was
Confucian. Confucian placed his own beliefs in a way that one develops. He theorized that
humans develop from four beginnings. The first beginning was reason or moral

Ganter 4
understanding. The next two were fellow-feeling or compassion and resentment or a sense
of justice. The final beginning was guilt or shame which was regret or wrong doing. Another
widely recognized philosopher with views on moral development was Aristotle. Aristotle
presented the Aristotelean Principle which moves one to prefer harder activities over weaker
activities. The harder activity will provide more experience which presents greater moral
growth. He also theorized that as one grows they are provided tools and tendencies for good
morality. This theory goes against the modern belief that humans are born with naturally good
morals, and there was no assumption as to the natural nature of human morality (Puka).
Additionally, some other early viewpoints considered that moral insight and virtue was
complete at the time of birth. This viewpoint does not however explain the amount of wisdom
and ethics found in elders and the immaturity and ignorance found amongst most children.
Another theory presented by Rawls in 1972 was the theory of justice. This theory was a vision
of moral cooperation. It is proposed that if everyone morally cooperated, then this could be a
way to civilize the entire species. This means that a species wide peace is suppressed by the
same conflicts that affect individual moral development. Another viewpoint is Ethical
Perfectionalism. As one morally develops they strive for ethical perfection. This strive for
having perfect virtues aids in the development of ones own virtues. This goal renders virtue
and morality a natural and easy thing to achieve, making the accomplishment of being ethically
perfect fulfilling. This motivationally drives one to do well and to follow moral beliefs as they
develop (Puka).
In addition to the natural draw to being morally perfect and strive for moral greatness,
there are also theorized ways to accomplish this goal. There are many things one can do to
focus their efforts toward ethical perfection. Alternatively there are many things that can set one
back or distract them from this goal. As humans grow, the most fulfilling sensation one can feel
is when they do what is right. Humans are drawn to do right in the same way that they are
drawn to eat, while not as strong of a pull they still have a basic level of need for doing well.

Ganter 5
This pull develops more as one grows. Moral integrity can produce a greater self-esteem and
can be more satisfying than material obsessions and social rank. This means that naturally one
will strive to do what is right, even if it is harder, since the extra effort needed will make one feel
even more complete. Most of the time that humans are under moral development they are
given tools to handle issues that one is not morally ready to evaluate. To fully mature morally
one must deny the most basic animalistic urges and keep a clear mind (Puka). Alternatively
humans are also driven to do well by guilt. There are two forms of guilt. The first is sin of
omission which is when one feels guilty for not taking action to do what is right. The other is
sin of commission. This is when one feels guilt for doing wrong (Seifert and Hoffnung 561).
Although one is naturally drawn to do well, there are many things that can internally drive
them away from the morally correct choice. Humans corrupt their own ethical growth without
even realizing it by conspiring with things that demoralizes them. There is a constant
development to tolerate these corruptions, however this development is much too slow to
protect one from all of the corruptions. There is also a difference between being morally
righteous and being intellectually moral. One is intellectually moral when they are not following
their natural instincts but are thinking about the benefits of doing well over doing wrong. This
form of morality is motivationally irrational or unnatural. In most cases motivation has a stronger
grip on ones perception between right and wrong than logic or reason does. When making an
intellectually moral decision one asks themselves why be moral? This makes a person
question why they should do as they are told when it conflicts with what they desire or what
motivates them (Puka).
In addition to internal complications, the environment one is surrounded by has a large
effect on the strive for moral perfection as well. With this being said, humans are also given the
ability to compensate for their social environment. Certain aspects of moral development that
are not interfered with by social surroundings will continue to progress over others that are
corrupted (Puka). Children of a young age are initially affected by their parents. Sigmund

Ganter 6
Freud theorized that children around the age of four received morals from their same sex
parent. Because of this children have a basic understanding of virtues depending on what their
parents believe (Piotrowski 1228). Seifert and Hoffnung propose that: children must learn that
forcing a candy bar on a friend who does not really want it does not constitute as a good deed.
Teenagers are the most common age group to be influenced in their ethical decisions. Peers
can often affect a teen who is aware of how their decision will affect his or her social image. For
example, if a group of friends decide that premarital sex is okay, then one will adapt this belief in
a generic sense. It is the same if the group agrees that premarital sex is not okay. However,
one may act or claim to have a certain belief when in a social environment, but act differently if
actually presented with the issue. (Seifert and Hoffnung 560)
In conclusion, while one grows and gains more experience, their moral views are
constantly changing. The way that one can examine how humans morally develop is by
knowing what moral development is, being aware of the many constantly changing theories, and
by knowing how one can push themselves to achieve ethical perfection. There are many ways
that the development of morality can be hindered, which can be used to explain the actions of
criminals and killers. Some may develop at an accelerated rate in comparison to others, but
most humans develop, and continue to develop throughout a majority of their life.

Ganter 7
Works Cited
Bonn, Scott. How to Tell a Sociopath from a Psychopath. Psychology Today, Sussex
Publishers, 22 Jan. 2014. Web. 21 Feb. 2016. <www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wickeddeeds/201401/how-tell-sociopath-psychopath>.
McLeod, Saul. Kohlberg. Simply Psychology. n.p. n.d. Web. 20 Feb. 2016.
<www.simplypsychology.org/kohlberg.html>.
Myers, David. Exploring Psychology. New York: Catherine Woods, 2007. Print.
Piotrowski, Nancy. Salem Health: Psychology and Mental Health. Nancy Piotrowski. Vol. 3.
Oceanside: Salem Press, 2009. Print.
Puka, William. Moral Development. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ISSN 2161-0002, n.d.
Web. 16 Nov. 2015. <www.iep.utm.edu/moraldev/>.
Seifert, Kevin, and Robert Hoffnung. Child and Adolescent Development. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin Company, 1991. Print.