Lawrence Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development

How do children develop their ethical principles?

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

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

If the former is the task of philosophers, the latter falls squarely in the realm of psychology, in which Lawrence's theory of moral development stands out. Lawrence Kohlberg's theory of moral development stands out..

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 twentieth century, from Harvard University, devoted himself in large part to investigating the way in which people reason in moral problems.He was an American psychologist born in 1927, who in the second half of the twentieth century, from Harvard University, devoted himself largely to investigating the way in which people reason in moral problems.

That is, instead of being concerned with studying the appropriateness or inappropriateness of actions, as philosophers such as Socrates did, he studied the norms and rules that could be observed in human thought in relation to morality.

The similarities between Kohlberg's theory and that of Piaget

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

Moreover, in both Kohlberg's 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 the directly observable to the abstract and more general.

In Piaget's case, this meant that in our early childhood we tend to think only about what we can perceive directly in real time, and that we gradually learn to reason about abstract elements that we cannot experience firsthand.

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

The three levels of moral development

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

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

1. pre-conventional phase

In the first phase of moral development, which according to Kohlberg usually lasts until the age of 9, the person judges events according to the way they affect him/her..

1.1. First stage: obedience and punishment orientation

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

For example, in this stage there is a tendency to consider the innocent victims of an event to be guiltyThe victims of an event, for example, tend to be considered guilty because they have suffered a "punishment", while those who harm others without being punished are not wrongdoers. This 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, we begin to think beyond the individual, but egocentrism is still present.. If in the previous phase it is not possible to conceive 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 in this phase opt for relativism and individualism, as they do not identify with collective values: each person defends his or her own and acts accordingly. It is believed that, if agreements are established, they must be respected so as not to create a context of insecurity that is detrimental to individuals.

2. Conventional phase

The conventional phase is usually the one that defines the thinking of adolescents and many adults. In this phase, the existence of both a series of individual interests and a series of social conventions about what is good and what is not good are taken into account. and what is bad that helps to create a collective ethical "umbrella".

2.1. Third stage: consensus orientation

In the third stage good actions are defined by how they impact one's relationships with others. Therefore, people who are in the consensus-oriented stage try to be accepted by others and strive to make their actions fit nicely into the collective set of rules that define what is good..

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

2.2. Fourth stage: orientation to authority

In this stage of moral development, good and bad emanate from a set of norms that are perceived as separate from the individuals.. Good is to comply with the rules, and evil is to break them.

There is no possibility of acting beyond these rules, and the separation between good and bad is as definite 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 for what one does, here the ethical circle is wider and includes all those who are subject to the law.

3. Post-conventional phase

People who are in this phase have their own moral principles as a reference point. which, although they do not necessarily coincide with the established norms, are based both on collective values and individual freedoms, not exclusively on self-interest.

3.1. Stage 5: orientation towards the social contract

The way of moral reasoning proper to this stage arises from a reflection on whether laws and norms are right or wrong, that is, whether they shape a good society.

We think about the way in which society can affect the quality of people's lives, and we also think about the way in which society can affect the quality of people's lives.The idea is also to think 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, going beyond existing rules and adopting a distanced theoretical position. The fact of considering, for example, that slavery was legal but illegitimate and yet it existed as if it were something totally normal would fall within this stage of moral development.

3.2. Stage 6: orientation towards universal principles

The moral reasoning that characterizes this stage is very abstract.It 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 unjust, changing it should be a priority. Moreover, decisions do not emanate from assumptions about the context, but from categorical considerations based on universal moral principles.