Lawrence Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development

The study of morals it is something that is constantly generating dilemmas, doubts and theories.

Virtually everyone has wondered at some point about what is right and what is not, about what is the best way to prioritize to become a good person, or even about the meaning of the word itself "moral". However, far fewer have set out to study not what is good, evil, ethics and morals, but the way in which we think about those ideas.

If the former is the task of philosophers, the latter enters fully into the field of psychology, in which highlights Lawrence Kohlberg's theory of moral development.

Who was Lawrence Kohlberg?

The creator of this theory of moral development, Lawrence Kohlberg, was an American psychologist born in 1927 who in the second half of the 20th centurySince Harvard University, he has devoted himself largely to investigating the way in which people reason on moral problems.

That is, instead of worrying about studying the appropriateness or inappropriateness of actions, as philosophers such as

Socrates, he studied the norms and rules that could be observed in human thought in relation to morality.

The Similarities Between Kohlberg's Theory and Piaget's

His research resulted in Kohlberg's theory of moral development, greatly influenced by the Jean Piaget's theory of the 4 phases of cognitive development. Like Piaget, Lawrence Kohlberg believed that there are qualitatively qualitative stages in the evolution of typical modes of moral reasoning. different from each other, and that curiosity to learn is one of the main engines of mental development throughout the different phases of life.

Furthermore, in both Kohlberg and Piaget's theory there is a basic idea: the development of the way of thinking goes from mental processes very focused on the concrete and the directly observable to the abstract and more general.

In Piaget's case, that meant that in our early childhood we tend to think only about what we can perceive directly in real time, and that little by little we are learning to reason about abstract elements that we cannot experience in first person.

In the case of Lawrence Kohlberg, it means that the group of people we can come to wish the good is getting bigger and bigger to the point of including those who have not seen or we know. The ethical circle is becoming more and more extensive and inclusive, although what matters is not so much the gradual expansion of this, but the qualitative changes that occur in the moral development of a person as he goes evolving. In fact, Kohlberg's theory of moral development is based on 6 levels.

The three levels of moral development

The categories that Kohlberg used to indicate the level of moral development are a way of expressing the substantial differences that occur in the way of reasoning of someone as she grows and learns.

These 6 stages fall into three broader categories: the pre-conventional phase, the conventional phase and the post-conventional phase.

1. pre-conventional phase

In the first phase of moral development, which according to Kohlberg usually lasts up to 9 years, the person judges events according to how they affect him.

1.1. First stage: orientation to obedience and punishment

In the first stage, the individual only thinks about the immediate consequences of his actions, avoiding unpleasant experiences linked to punishment and seeking the satisfaction of one's own needs.

For example, in this phase, the innocent victims of an event tend to be considered guilty, for having suffered a "punishment", while those who harm others without being punished do not do wrong. It is an extremely egocentric style of reasoning in which good and evil have to do with what each individual experiences separately.

1.2. Second stage: self-interest orientation

In the second stage, one begins to think beyond the individual, but self-centeredness is still present.. If in the previous phase it is not conceivable that there is a moral dilemma in itself because there is only one point of view, in this one the existence of clashes of interests begins to be recognized.

Faced with this problem, people who are in this phase opt for relativism and individualism, by not identifying with collective values: each one defends his own and works in consequence. It is believed that, if agreements are established, they must be respected so as not to create a context of insecurity that harms individuals.

2. Conventional phase

The conventional phase is usually the one that defines the thinking of adolescents and many adults. In her, the existence of both a series of individual interests and a series of social conventions about what is good is taken into account and what is bad that helps to create a collective ethical "umbrella".

2.1. Third stage: orientation towards consensus

In the third stage, good actions are defined by how they affect the relationships one has with others. For this reason, people who are in the consensus orientation stage try to be accepted by the rest and they strive to make their actions fit very well within the collective set of rules that define what is good.

Good and bad actions are defined by the motives behind them and the way in which these decisions fit into a set of shared moral values. The attention is not fixed on how good or bad certain proposals may sound, but on the objectives behind them.

2.2. Fourth stage: orientation to authority

At this stage of moral development, the good and the bad emanate from a series of norms that are perceived as something separate from individuals. The good consists in complying with the rules, and the evil is breaking them.

There is no possibility of acting beyond these rules, and the separation between good and bad is as defined as the rules are concrete. If in the previous stage the interest is rather in those people who know each other and who can show approval or rejection of what one does, here the ethical circle is broader and encompasses all those subject to the law.

3. Post-conventional phase

People who are in this phase have their own moral principles as a reference that, despite not having to coincide with the established norms, they rely on both collective values ​​and individual freedoms, not exclusively on their own interest.

3.1. Stage 5: orientation towards the social contract

The way of moral reasoning typical of this stage arises from a reflection on whether the laws and norms are correct or not, that is, if they shape a good society.

We think about the way in which society can affect people's quality of life, and it also thinks about the way in which people can change the rules and laws when they are dysfunctional.

In other words, there is a very global vision of moral dilemmas, by going beyond the existing rules and adopting a distanced theoretical position. The fact of considering, for example, that slavery was legal but illegitimate and that despite that it existed as if it were something totally normal would enter into this stage of moral development.

3.2. Stage 6: orientation towards universal principles

The moral reasoning that characterizes this phase is very abstract, and is based on the creation of universal moral principles that are different from the laws themselves. For example, it is considered that when a law is unfair, changing it should be a priority. Furthermore, decisions do not emanate from assumptions about context, but rather from categorical considerations based on universal moral principles.