Lawrence Kohlberg was born on October 25, 1927 in

Bronxville, New York. In 1973 Kohlberg developed a tropical disease, and while
hospitalized in 1987, was reported missing on January 17. His body was later recovered
from a marsh; however, the exact date of his death remains unknown. Rumor is that he
committed suicide. Kohlberg has spent many years researching how an individual
develops their own moral codes.

Kohlberg was a psychologist who applied the developmental approach of Jean Piaget,
who he studied under, to the analysis of changes in moral reasoning. For his doctoral
research Kohlberg studied differences in children's reasoning about moral dilemmas.
Influenced by Piaget's concept of stages, Kohlberg's theory was created based on the
idea that stages of moral development build on each other in order of importance and
significance to the person. Each stage depends on the other from simple to the
complex. Each stage also is more cognitively complex than the previous stages.

He hypothesized that moral difficulties motivated their development through a fixed

sequence of increasingly flexible kinds of moral reasoning. He also helped to clarify the
general cognitive-developmental view of age-related changes.

Significant works: Kohlberg, L. A. (1966) Cognitive-Developmental Analysis of

Children's Sex-Role Concepts and Attitudes. in The Development of Sex Differences,
edited by E.E. Maccoby, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press,. Kohlberg, L. Stage
and Sequence: The Cognitive-Developmental Approach to Socialization. In Handbook
of Socialization:Theory in Research, Ed. D.A. Goslin. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1969.
Kohlberg, L. The Philosophy of Moral Development:Essays on Moral Development
(volume I). San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1981. Kohlberg, L. Moral Development and
Behavior; Moral Stages and Moralization, edited by Thomas Likona: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, CBS College Publishing, 1976.
 Lawrence Kohlberg

1927-1987

Throughout the course of the last two decades, scores of undergraduate

psychology students have been introduced to the work of Lawrence Kohlberg in
their Introductory Psychology courses and Lifespan Development courses. His
research, and the research of several of his contemporaries and colleagues, such
as Carol Gilligan, was the first of its kind to foster a contemporary understanding
of how individuals develop as moral beings. Whether or not we have had the
opportunity to learn about Kohlberg’s work, most of us have asked ourselves
those fundamental questions about the ways we make decisions, particularly
those decisions that cannot be linked to the reduction of a primary drive, or those
decisions that do not reward us with a tangible, easily recognizable reward. As human beings
living in societies, many of us have struggled with the ways decisions and policies are
implemented in our justice system. Kohlberg’s work aids both our understanding of the ways in
which individuals make moral decisions, and demands that we use a more discerning system to
critique the systems of justice that are in place in our societies.

Who

What

When

How

Legacy

References:

http://www.psy.pdx.edu/PsiCafe/KeyTheorists/Kohlberg.htm#About

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg

http://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/features/larry10012000_page1.html

http://www.ripon.edu/academics/leadership/CLN/LaurenceKohlberg.htm

http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/kohlberg.htm

http://www.psy.pdx.edu/PsiCafe/KeyTheorists/Kohlberg.htm#Research (This
is a good place to acquire the moral dilemmas that Kohlberg used, it also has
links to criticisms of his theory and additional details on his stages of moral
development.)

Developed by Robyn Long for PSCY 6180: History of Psychology

 Dr. Roger Thomas

Who…
Lawrence Kohlberg was born in 1927 in Bronxville, New
York. Born into wealth, Kohlberg displayed an early
concern for the welfare of others by volunteering as a
sailor in World War II and, later, working to smuggle Jews
through the British Blockade into Palestine. As a
teenager, Kohlberg attended Phillips Academy, a
prestigious private preparatory school, and later
remarked that he had been better known for his mischief
at Phillips than his scholarship. It was upon his graduation
from Phillips, however, that Kohlberg first began to
recognize his passion for the Zionist cause, and,
following his graduation, he enlisted as an engineer on a
carrier ship. Kohlberg and his compatriots were
successful in smuggling Jews from Europe to Palestine by
placing beds inside banana crates. This illustration of a theorist’s personal choices
in regard to a moral decision must surely have impacted his later work and the
direction of his scholarship.

Upon return from the war, Kohlberg enrolled at The University of

Chicago and completed his bachelor’s degree in psychology in just one year
(1949). Electing to pursue his doctoral education at Chicago, Kohlberg grew
increasingly fascinated by the cognitive development work proposed by Swiss
theorist Jean Piaget, and focused his efforts on the moral development of
children for his dissertation. Kohlberg’s primary work, his development of
stages of moral development, was born out of his doctoral dissertation.

From 1958, upon the completion of his dissertation, until 1968,

Kohlberg taught at The University of Chicago, primarily affiliated with The
Committee on Human Development, cementing his identity as a
developmental psychologist. In 1968, following his marriage and the birth of
two children, Kohlberg accepted a position at Harvard University, where he
taught both education and social psychology, a true melding of his interests
in psychology, moral development, and social justice.

In 1969, Kohlberg visited Israel, and was stunned by the advanced

moral development of the youths he met that had journeyed the kibbutz. This
experience inspired Kohlberg’s decision to create “just communities”,
primarily schools, (although he created a “just community” in a prison as
well) upon his return from Israel. “Just communities” were school
environments in which students were encouraged and supported to form
relationships of basic trust and respect with one another, and these school
communities provided students the opportunity to be self-governed, and
encouraged a democratic form of government within each community.
Kohlberg’s first “just community” was The Cluster School, upon which he
modeled subsequent communities.

Sadly, it is Kohlberg’s untimely end that is oft-remembered, though it

serves as a powerful reminder of how one individual makes moral decisions.
In 1971, Kohlberg contracted a tropical disease while he was completing
research in Belize. The effects of this disease included both physical pain and
depression, which persisted for sixteen years. On January 19th, 1987,
Kohlberg took a one-day leave of absence from the hospital where he was
being treated for the illness, drove himself to the coast, and drowned himself.
It is unclear whether or not January 19th was the
official day of his death, but it is widely accepted
that Dr. Kohlberg committed suicide. One year
after they pulled Dr. Kohlberg’s body from Boston
Harbor, 600 people gathered at the Harvard
Graduate School of Education and declared April
15th as Lawrence Kohlberg Day. William Damon, a
scholar from Clark University, (now at Stanford
University) summed up the sentiments of many,
“It is going to take a long time to figure out what
(Kohlberg’s) work meant in all of it’s implications.”

What…
Kohlberg’s doctoral dissertation made him a star among psychologists
when he proposed his six stages of moral development, which contrasted
with the moral development theory of his primary influence, Jean Piaget, who
had proposed only two stages of moral development. Kohlberg based his
theory on interviews that he conducted in Chicago with 72 Caucasian male
youths, largely lower and middle class. He later added more diversity to his
sample, including delinquents, females, younger children and youth raised in
other cultures. Each of the youth were asked to make moral decisions about
“The Dilemma of Heinz”, a story about a fictional and financially strapped
man who must make a decision about stealing medication for his dying wife.
Whether than simply investigating a “yes” or “no” response from the youth,
however, Kohlberg was interested in the reasoning that they youth employed
in making their decisions. It is upon his empirical observation of this
reasoning that Kohlberg based his theory, and identified six stages of moral
development. Kohberg observed that young children felt they had no choice
but to observe the rules handed down by a society, and would almost
universally say “no” to Heinz stealing the drug. But as children aged,
Kohlberg noted that the youth recognized that they had additional choices,
the youth began to make choices based on self-interest, and, eventually, as
they age, based on the interests of a moral society.

Kohlberg’s work began to view the “child as a moral philosopher” and

broke from psychoanalytic traditions that viewed children simply as the
recipient of their parents’ moral values and the behaviorist tradition that
viewed moral decisions solely as a system of rewards and punishments.
Kohlberg argued the children’s moral thinking was influenced instead by
social relationships and emotions, such as empathy, love, respect and
attachment.

The methods of research that Kohlberg

employed earned him the due respect of psychology
 and education researchers alike. The Six Stages of
Moral Development are as follows:

Level I:

Preconventional Morality (age 4 - 10) Moral value resides in a person's own

needs and wants

Stage1: Obedience and Punishment Orientation Individual's moral judgment is

motivated by a need to avoid punishment.

Stage 2: Instrumental-Relativist Orientation Individual's moral judgment is

motivated by a need to satisfy own desires.

Level II:

Conventional Morality(age 10 - 13) Moral values reside in performing good or

right roles, in maintaining the convention order, and in pleasing others.

Stage 3: "Good Boy/Nice Girl" Orientation Individual's moral judgment is motivated

by a need to avoid rejection, disaffection, or disapproval from others.

Stage 4: Law and Order Orientation Individual's moral judgment is motivated by a

need to not be criticized by a true authority figure.

Level III:

Postconventional Morality (adolescence - adulthood) Moral Values reside in

principles, separate from those who hold moral values in principles, separate from
those who enforce them, and a part from a person's identification with the enforcing
group. Most people never reach this last level.

Stage 5: Legalistic Orientation Individual's moral judgment is motivated by

community respect for all, respecting social order, and living under legally
determined laws.

Stage 6: Universal, Ethical Orientation Individual's moral judgment is motivated by

one's own conscience

Examples of Stages 1 Through 6

The following are examples of each stage at each of Kohlberg's levels.

Stage 1: I do not say bad words because if I do, mommy will get mad at me.

Stage 2: For a cookie, I will pick up my toys.

Stage 3: I do not eat in class because my teacher does not like it.

Stage 4: I do not talk during a fire drill because that is one of the rules.

Stage 5: I pay taxes because it is the law.

Stage 6: I pay taxes not because it is the law, but because it is the right thing to
do.

When…
Timeline of Kohlberg’s Life and Work
October 15, 1927: Kohlberg born in Bronxville, New York
1948: After passing a number of exams with outstanding scores,
Kohlberg enters The University of Chicago and completes his
bachelor’s degree in Psychology in one year
1949: Kohlberg begins his doctoral work at The University of
Chicago

1957-1958: Using the Dilemma of Heniz, Kohlberg completes his doctoral

dissertation research on the moral development of children, and
proposes his six stages
1958-1968: Kohlberg teaches at his alma mater, The
University of Chicago
1968: As a result of his dissertation research,
Kohlberg found professional
fame and was recruited by Harvard University, where he began
teaching education and social psychology and expanded his
professional research related to moral development
1969: Kohlberg travels to Israel where he is
impressed by the moral development of youth
participating in kibbutz, or a collective farm in
Israel that once mirrored much of communist
thought, today, they are often privately owned and operated
because of changing forces in the economic climate. A
secondary criticism of the kibbutz was the time that the youth
who operated the kibbutz spent away from their parents, often
spending as little as one night a week at home. The creator of
this website conducted a phone interview with librarian Tamra
Gershon; for more information on the kibbutz, see:
http://homepage.mac.com/ardeshir/KIBBUTZ-March’01.html
Influenced by the kibbutz, Kohlberg returns to The United
States and founds several “just communities”, his first being The
Cluster School

1971: While conducting cross-cultural work in Belize, Kohlberg

contracts a tropical disease that will plague him physically and
mentally for the next sixteen years

1987: On leave from a Massachusetts hospital where he is seeking

treatment for the above illness, Kohlberg commits suicide by
drowning himself in Boston Harbor. He was 59 years old

How…
 Kohlberg conducted his doctoral research, as mentioned above, in
Chicago, looking at the moral reasoning with which 72 youth addressed a
number of dilemmas. Over the course of his career, Kohlberg diversified the
population with which he conducted this research, and was deeply influenced
by his colleague Carol Gilligan at Harvard, who challenged Kohlberg’s theory
and its applicability to females. Much has been made of their professional
rivalry, but in 1997, ten years after Kohlberg’s death, Dr. Gilligan addressed
an audience, sharing her impressions of her colleague:

"Something of a false story had been circulating, that I was Larry's student,
that we were involved in a war," she said. "So the news that, for example,
we taught together about our disagreements, and that what was at stake
were real and serious issues on both sides, came as a reminder to some
people as to what both his work and my work were really about."

Dr. Gilligan shared that she welcomed the opportunity to honor

Kohlberg, to quell rumors and revisit the past.

The following examples of moral dilemmas are frequently used

to encourage a dialogue about moral reasoning, the first is the
Dilemma of Heinz, which was the vignette employed by Kohlberg in his
dissertation research.

The Dilemma of Heinz

In Europe, a woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was
one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium
that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. the drug was
expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug
cost him to make. He paid $400 for the radium and charged $4,000 for a
small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone
he knew to borrow the money and tried every legal means, but he could only
get together about $2,000, which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist
that his wife was dying, and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later.
But the druggist said, "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make
money from if." So, having tried every legal means, Heinz gets desperate
and considers breaking into the man's store to steal the drug for his wife.
1. Should Heinz steal the drug?
1a. Why or why not?
2. Is it actually right or wrong for him to steal the drug?
2a. Why is it right or wrong?
3. Does Heinz have a duty or obligation to steal the drug?
3a. Why or why not?
4. If Heinz doesn't love his wife, should he steal the drug for her? Does it
make a difference in what Heinz should do whether or not he loves his wife?
4a. Why or why not?
5. Suppose the person dying is not his wife but a stranger. Should Heinz steal
the drug for the stranger?
5a. Why or why not?
6. Suppose it's a pet animal he loves. should Heinz steal to save the pet
animal?
6a. Why or why not?
7. Is it important for people to do everything they can to save another's life?
7a. Why or why not?
8. It is against the law for Heinz to steal. Does that make it morally wrong?
8a. Why or why not?
9. In general, should people try to do everything they can to obey the law?
9a. Why or why not?
9b. How does this apply to what Heinz should do?
10. In thinking back over the dilemma, what would you say is the most
responsible thing for Heinz to do?
10a. Why?

Dilemma I
Joe is a fourteen-year-old boy who wanted to go to camp very much. His
father promised him he could go if he saved up the money for it himself. So
Joe worked hard at his paper route and saved up the forty dollars it cost to
go to camp, and a little more besides. But just before camp was going to
start, his father changed his mind. Some of his friends decided to go on a
special fishing trip, and Joe's father was short of the money it would cost. So
he told Joe to give him the money he had saved from the paper route. Joe
didn't want to give up going to camp, so he thinks of refusing to give his
father the money.
1. Should Joe refuse to give his father the money?
1a. Why or why not?
2. Does the father have the right to tell Joe to give him the money?
2a. Why or why not?
3. Does giving the money have anything to do with being a good son?
3a. Why or why not?
4. Is the fact that Joe earned the money himself important in this situation?
4a. Why or why not?
5. The father promised Joe he could go to camp if he earned the money. Is
the fact that the father promised the most important thing in the situation?
5a. Why or why not?
6. In general, why should a promise kept?
7. Is it important to keep a promise to someone you don't know well and
probably won't see again?
7a. Why or why not?
8. What do you think is the most important thing a father should be
concerned about in his relationship to his son?
8a. Why is that the most important thing?
9. In general, what should be the authority of a father over his son?
9a. Why?
10. What do you think is the most important thing a son should be concerned
about in his relationship to his father?
10a. Why is that the most important thing?
11. In thinking back over the dilemma, what would you say is the most
responsible thing for Joe to do in this situation?
11a. Why?

Dilemma II
Judy was a twelve-year-old girl. Her mother promised her that she could go
to a special rock concert coming to their town if she saved up from baby-
sitting and lunch money to buy a ticket to the concert. She managed to save
up the fifteen dollars the ticket cost plus another five dollars. But then her
mother changed her mind and told Judy that she had to spend the money on
new clothes for school. Judy was disappointed and decided to go to the
concert anyway. She bought a ticket and told her mother that she had only
been able to save five dollars. That Saturday she went to the performance
and told her mother that she was spending the day with a friend. A week
passed without her mother finding out. Judy then told her older sister, Louise,
that she had gone to the performance and had lied to her mother about it.
Louise wonders whether to tell their mother what Judy did.
1. Should Louise, the older sister, tell their mother that Judy lied about the
money or should she keep quiet? 1a. Why?
2. In wondering whether to tell, Louise thinks of the fact that Judy is her
sister. Should that make a difference in Louise's decision?
2a. Why or why not?
3. Does telling have anything to do with being a good daughter?
3a. Why or why not?
4. Is the fact that Judy earned the money herself important in this situation?
4a. Why or why not?
5. The mother promised Judy she could go to the concert if she earned the
money. Is the fact that the mother promised the most important thing in the
situation?
5a. Why or why not?
6. Why in general should a promise be kept?
7. Is it important to keep a promise to someone you don't know well and
probably won't see again?
7a. Why or why not?
8. What do you think is the most important thing a mother should be
concerned about in her relationship to her daughter?
8a. Why is that the most important thing?
9. In general, what should be the authority of a mother over her daughter?
9a. Why?
10. What do you think is the most important thing a daughter should be
concerned about in her relationship to her mother?
10a. Why is that the most important thing?
11. In thinking back over the dilemma, what would you say is the most
responsible thing for Louise to do in this situation?
11a. Why?

The Legacy of Lawrence Kohlberg

I'm here to speak about Larry. He cared about us
and loved us all in a special way. If he was here now
he'd be so proud of us, of the progress we have been
doing, passing our classes and staying in school. Larry
was a nice, sweet, gentle person." –Ann Higgins,
Kohlberg’s fiancée at the time of his death

“Larry promoted the idea of a democratic, just-

community school where each person—whether a
student or staff member—had one vote in deciding school policies.” –Elsa
Wasserman, former counselor at The Cluster School

"We have three members of our senior faculty alone whose intellectual work
has a direct line to Kohlberg. I don't think there's another person, living or
dead, about whom that could be said."—Bob Egan, Harvard Professor

For information on how Kohlberg’s research and theories can be applied, see
links at:

http://www.psy.pdx.edu/PsiCafe/KeyTheorists/Kohlberg.htm#Books

Looking for information on Implications of Kohlberg’s theory for Education?

See:

http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/kohlberg.htm

Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Reasoning

In brief, Kohlberg's theory of moral development presents three levels: the
preconventional, conventional, and postconventional. Each level contains two stages. Stages 1
and 2 in the preconventional level involve an "egocentric point of view" and a "concrete
individualistic perspective" in which the person makes choices based on the fear of punishment
and the desire for rewards. In Stages 3 and 4 of the conventional level, persons make choices
from a "member-of-society" perspective, considering the good of others, the maintenance of
positive relations, and the rules of society. Persons in the final stages of the postconventional
level, Stages 5 and 6, reason from a "prior-to-society" perspective in which abstract ideals take
precedence over particular societal laws.

To measure the level at which persons are operating morally, Kohlberg developed a
highly refined interview process in which hypothetical situations are presented that involve a
moral dilemma. The person's answers to questions surrounding that dilemma determine the stage
at which he or she is reasoning. One of the best-known examples of hypothetical moral dilemmas
presented in Kohlberg's interview is that of an impoverished man who needs a certain medicine
for his wife who is ill: is the man justified in stealing the medicine from the pharmacy when he
does not have enough money to pay for it? Why or why not? The details of the hypothetical
situation can then be altered slightly to bring out the nuances of a person's moral reasoning (e.g.,
does it depend on how ill the wife is, how poor the husband is, whether it is a small, family-
owned corner drugstore or a large, nationwide chain, etc.).

Kohlberg also developed a method of moral education based on an expanded form of the
interview process. He believed that participation in moral discussions spurs growth in moral
reasoning. The "just community" approach to education that Kohlberg helped create has three
basic aims: 1) to encourage moral development through discussions of moral issues; 2) to
develop a culture of moral norms through community-building and the democratic establishment
of rules; and 3) to create a context where students and teachers can act on their moral decisions.
Just Community programs were put into effect in a number of public schools, with a fair amount
of success (see Power, Higgins, and Kohlberg 1989).
 However, there have been many criticisms of Kohlberg's theory of moral development
and his methods. Some critics claim that the use of hypothetical situations skews the results
because it measures abstract rather than concrete reasoning. When children (and some adults) are
presented with situations out of their immediate experience, they turn to rules they have learned
from external authorities for answers, rather than to their own internal voice. Therefore, young
children base their answers on rules of "right" and "wrong" they have learned from parents and
teachers (Stages 1 and 2 according to Kohlberg's theory). If young children are presented with
situations familiar to them, on the other hand, they often show care and concern for others,
basing their moral choices on the desire to share the good and maintain harmonious relations,
placing them in Stage 3 or 4 (which Kohlberg claimed was impossible at their age).

Lawrence Kohlberg (1927-1987), an American psychologist, pioneered the study of

moral development in the late 1950s. Kohlberg's theory of moral reasoning involved six stages
through which each person passes in order, without skipping a stage or reversing their order. His
theory states that not all people progress through all six stages.

In the 1950s, science as a whole held to the positivist belief that scientific study should be free of
moral values, maintaining instead a purely "objective," value-free stance. Western psychology at
that time was dominated by behaviorists who focused on behavior rather than reasoning or will.
In 1958, Lawrence Kohlberg published a study that broke with both the positivists and
behaviorists by presenting a theory of moral development (bringing together science and moral
values) based on cognitive reasoning (rather than behavior). Kohlberg's theory initiated an
entirely new field of study in Western science that gained momentum in the 1960s and 1970s and
continues to inspire new research today.

Kohlberg's theory of moral development expands upon Jean Piaget 's work in the 1930s
concerning cognitive reasoning. Piaget proposed three phases of cognitive development through
which people pass in a loose order. In contrast, Kohlberg posited six stages (in three levels, with
two stages each) of moral development, based on cognitive reasoning, through which each
person passes in unvarying and irreversible order. According to Kohlberg, every person begins at
Stage 1 moral reasoning and develops progressively to Stage 2, then Stage 3, etc. Not everyone
makes it through all six stages; in fact, people who use Stage 5 or 6 moral reasoning are quite
rare. Kohlberg claimed that his stages of moral development are universal, applying equally to
all human beings across cultural divisions.

Kohlberg's emphasis on abstract reasoning also creates confusing results in which

habitual juvenile delinquents can score at a higher stage of moral development than well-
behaved children. Because behaviors are not considered and reasoning is determined through
hypothetical situations, children who behave in immoral ways may be able to answer
hypothetical moral dilemmas in a more advanced fashion than better-behaved children who think
less abstractly. Early criticisms of Kohlberg's lack of attention to behaviors led Kohlberg to add
an emphasis on moral action to his Just Community educational program. For those who are
looking for concrete help in developing moral values in children, however, Kohlberg's theory is
still of little practical use.
Another strong criticism of Kohlberg's theory is that it devalues the morality of care and
community. Carol Gilligan was the first to attack this aspect of Kohlberg's theory, relating it to
gender differences between men and women (all of Kohlberg's original subjects were male, as
was Kohlberg himself). Although Gilligan's critique has weaknesses of its own, her assessment
of Kohlberg's theory as incomplete has many supporters, though others relate the absence of
communitarian morality to class rather than gender differences.

Kohlberg, as a member of the educated, elite, white, male, Western culture, viewed individual
autonomy and justice as the premier moral values. He even went so far as to equate morality with
justice (ignoring other moral values such as courage, self-control, empathy, etc.). Members of the
working and rural classes, however, tend to have a more communitarian approach to life,
viewing the common good as the highest value, promoting care and harmonious relationships
over individual justice. (Women, having been relegated to "lower class" status for centuries, may
have developed a more communitarian approach to life for that reason, rather than simply
because they are female.) Non-Western and tribal societies also frequently see the community as
more important than the individual.

According to Kohlberg's upper-class Western view of moral reasoning, communitarian

morality is doomed to rest forever at a lower stage of development (Stages 3 and 4). This view
disregards the possibility that communitarian morality may be as advanced as individualistic
morality, if not more so. It also places Western culture at the top of the scale, with little room for
cross-cultural inclusion. Although Kohlberg insisted that his theory was culturally inclusive, he
found little empirical evidence to back this up. In all of his interviews, only a few people showed
Stage 5 reasoning, and nearly all were well-educated Westerners. Stage 6 reasoning was never
substantiated in interviews; Kohlberg created it as an "ideal" and pointed to examples such as
Gandhi to support its existence. After a tremendous amount of criticism over the fact that Stage 6
was purely hypothetical, Kohlberg removed it from the empirical stages but retained it as a
"theoretical construct in the realm of philosophical speculation." Despite equally heavy criticism,
Kohlberg refused to remove Stage 5 from his system.

Stages of Moral Development

by Lawrence Kohlberg (1971)

At this level, the child is responsive to cultural rules and labels of good and bad, right or wrong, but he
interprets the labels in terms of either the physical or hedonistic consequences of action (punishment,
reward, exchange of favors) or the physical power of those who enunciate the rules and labels. The level
is divided into the following three stages:

Stage 0: Egocentric judgement. The child makes judgements of good on the basis of what he likes and
wants or what helps him, and bad on the basis of what he does not like or what hurts him. He has no
concept of rules or of obligations to obey or conform independent of his wish.

Stage 1: The punishment and obedience orientation. The physical consequences of action determine
its goodness or badness regardless of the human meaning or value of these consequences. Avoidance of
punishment and unquestioning deference to power are values in their own right, not in terms of respect
for an underlying moral order supported by punishment and authority (the latter is stage 4).

Stage 2: The instrumental relativist orientation. Right action consists of what instrumentally satisfies
one's own needs and occasionally the needs of others. Human relations are viewed in terms such as those
of the market place. Elements of fairness, reciprocity, and equal sharing are present, but they are always
interpreted in a physical, pragmatic way. Reciprocity is a matter of "you scratch my back and I'll scratch
your", not loyalty, gratitude, or justice.
 II. Conventional Level
At this level, the individual perceives the maintenance of the expectations of his family, group, or nation
as valuable in its own right, regardless of immediate and obvious consequences. The attitude is not only
one of conformity to personal expectations and social order, but of loyalty to it, of actively maintaining,
supporting, and justifying the order and identifying with the persons or group involved in it. The level
consists of the following two stages:

Stage 3: The interpersonal concordance or "good boy-nice girl" orientation. Good behavior is what
pleases or helps others and is approved by them. There is much conformity to stereotypical images of
what is majority or "natural" behavior. Behavior is frequently judged by intention -- "he means well"
becomes important for the first time. One earns approval by being "nice".

Stage 4: The "law and order" orientation. The individual is oriented toward authority, fixed rules, and
the maintenance of the social order. Right behavior consists in doing one's duty, showing respect for
authority, and maintaining the given social order for its own sake.

III. Post-Conventional, Autonomous, or Principled Level.

The individual makes a clear effort to define moral values and principles that have validity and
application apart from the authority of the groups of persons holding them and apart from the individual's
own identification with the group. The level has the two following stages:

Stage 5: The social-contract legalistic orientation (generally with utilitarian overtones). Right action
tends to be defined in terms of general individual rights and standards that have been critically examined
and agreed upon by the whole society. There is a clear awareness of the relativism of personal values and
opinions and a corresponding emphasis upon procedural rules for reaching consensus. Aside from what is
constitutionally and democratically agreed upon, right action is a matter of personal values and opinions.
The result is an emphasis upon the "legal point of view", but with an additional emphasis upon the
possibility of changing the law in terms of rational considerations of social utility (rather than freezing it
in terms of stage 4 "law and order"). Outside the legal realm, free agreement, and contract, is the binding
element of obligation. The "official" morality of the American government and Constitution is at this
stage.

Stage 6: The universal ethical-principle orientation. Right is defined by the decision of conscience in
accord with self-chosen ethical principles that appeal to logical comprehensiveness, universality, and
consistency. These principles are abstract and ethical (the Golden Rule, the categorical imperative); they
are not concrete moral rules like the Ten Commandments. At heart, these are universal principles of
justice, of the reciprocity and equality of the human rights, and of respect for the dignity of human beings
as individual persons.

Lawrence Kohlberg
Born 25 October 1927

Died 19 January 1987 (aged 59)

Cause of death Suicide

Lawrence Kohlberg (October 25, 1927 – January 19, 1987) was a Jewish American
psychologist born in Bronxville, New York, who served as a professor at the University of
Chicago, as well as Harvard University. Having specialized in research on moral education and
reasoning, he is best known for his theory of stages of moral development. A close follower of
Jean Piaget's theory of cognitive development, Kohlberg's work reflected and extended his
predecessor's ideas, at the same time creating a new field within psychology: "moral
development". Scholars such as Elliot Turiel and James Rest have responded to Kohlberg's work
with their own significant contributions. In an empirical study by Haggbloom et al. using six
criteria, such as citations and recognition, Kohlberg was found to be the 30th most eminent
psychologist of the 20th century.[1]

• Stages of Moral Development

Main article: Kohlberg's stages of moral development

In his 1958 dissertation, Kohlberg wrote what are now known as Kohlberg's stages of
moral development.[2] These stages are planes of moral adequacy conceived to explain the
development of moral reasoning. Created while studying psychology at the University of
Chicago, the theory was inspired by the work of Jean Piaget and a fascination with children's
reactions to moral dilemmas.[3] Kohlberg Proposed a form of “Socratic” moral education and
reaffirmed Dewey’s idea that development should be the aim of education. He also outlined how
educators can influence moral development without indoctrination and how public school can be
engaged in moral education consistent with the Constitution.[4]

His theory holds that moral reasoning,which is the basis for ethical behavior, has six identifiable
developmental constructive stages - each more adequate at responding to moral dilemmas than
the last.[5] In studying these, Kohlberg followed the development of moral judgment that is far
beyond the ages originally studied earlier by Piaget,[6] who also claimed that logic and morality
develop through constructive stages.[5] Expanding considerably upon this groundwork, it was
determined that the process of moral development was principally concerned with justice and
that its development continued throughout the life span,[2] even spawning dialogue of
philosophical implications of such research.[7][8]

Kohlberg studied moral reasoning by presenting subjects with moral dilemmas. He would then
categorize and classify the reasoning used in the responses, into one of six distinct stages,
grouped into three levels: pre-conventional, conventional and post-conventional.[9][10][11] Each
level contains two stages. These stages heavily influenced others and have been utilized by
others like James Rest in making the Defining Issues Test in 1979.[12]

Death
Kohlberg contracted a tropical parasite in 1971 while doing cross-cultural work in Belize. As a
result, he struggled with depression and physical pain for the rest of his life. On January 19,
1987, he requested a day of leave from the Massachusetts hospital where he was being treated,
and reportedly committed suicide by drowning himself in the Boston Harbor.