Comparing Piaget's and Kohlberg Theories.

Jean Piaget is among the first psychologists whose work remains

directly relevant to contemporary theories of moral development. In
his early writing, he focused specifically on the moral lives of
children, studying the way children play games in order to learn
more about children's beliefs about right and wrong. According to
Piaget, all development emerges from action; that is to say,
individuals construct and reconstruct their knowledge of the world
as a result of interactions with the environment. Based on his
observations of children's application of rules when playing, Piaget
determined that morality, too, can be considered a developmental
process. For example, Ben, a ten year old studied by Piaget,
provided the following critique of a rule made-up by a child playing marbles: "it isn't
a rule! It's a wrong rule because it's outside of the rules. A fair rule is one that is in the
game". Ben believed in the absolute and intrinsic truth of the rules, characteristic of
early moral reasoning. In contrast, Vua, aged thirteen, illustrates an understanding of
the reasoning behind the application of rules, characteristic of later moral thinking.
When asked to consider the fairness of a made-up rule compared to a traditional rule,
Vua replied "It is just as fair because the marbles are far apart"(making the game
equally difficult).

In addition to examining children's understanding of rules about games, Piaget

interviewed children regarding acts such as stealing and lying. When asked what a lie
is, younger children consistently answered that they are "naughty words". When
asked why they should not lie, younger children could rarely explain beyond the
forbidden nature of the act: "because it is a naughty word". However, older children
were able to explain "because it isn't right", and "it wasn't true". Even older children
indicated an awareness of intention as relevant to the meaning of an act: "A lie is
when you deceive someone else. To make a mistake is when you make a mistake".
From his observations, Piaget concluded that children begin in a "heteronomous"
stage of moral reasoning, characterized by a strict adherence to rules and duties, and
obedience to authority.

This heteronomy results from two factors. The first factor is the young child's
cognitive structure. According to Piaget, the thinking of young children is
characterized by egocentrism. That is to say that young children are unable to
simultaneously take into account their own view of things with the perspective of
someone else. This egocentrism leads children to project their own thoughts and
wishes onto others. It is also associated with the uni-directional view of rules and
power associated with heteronomous moral thought, and various forms of "moral
realism." Moral realism is associated with "objective responsibility", which is valuing
the letter of the law above the purpose of the law. This is why young children are
more concerned about the outcomes of actions rather than the intentions of the person
doing the act. Moral realism is also associated with the young child's belief in
"immanent justice." This is the expectation that punishments automatically follow
acts of wrong-doing. One of the most famous cases of such childhood thinking was
that of the young boy who believed that his hitting a power pole with his baseball bat
caused a major power blackout in the New York city area.

The second major contributor to heteronomous moral thinking in young children, is

their relative social relationship with adults. In the natural authority relationship
between adults and children, power is handed down from above. The relative
powerlessness of young children, coupled with childhood egocentrism feeds into a
heteronomous moral orientation.

However, through interactions with other children in which the group seeks to play
together in a way all find fair, children find this strict heteronomous adherence to
rules sometimes problematic. As children consider these situations, they develop
towards an "autonomous" stage of moral reasoning, characterized by the ability to
consider rules critically, and selectively apply these rules based on a goal of mutual
respect and cooperation. The ability to act from a sense of reciprocity and mutual
respect is associated with a shift in the child's cognitive structure from egocentrism to
perspective thinking. Coordinating one's own perspective with that of others means
that what is right needs to be based on solutions that meet the requirements of fair
reciprocity.

Thus, Piaget viewed moral development as the result of interpersonal interactions

through which individuals work out resolutions which all deem fair. Paradoxically,
this autonomous view of morality as fairness is more compelling and leads to more
consistent behavior than the heteronomous orientation held by younger children.

Piaget concluded from this work that schools should emphasize cooperative decision-
making and problem solving, nurturing moral development by requiring students to
work out common rules based on fairness. This is a direct rejection of sociologists
Emile Durkheim's view of proper moral education (1925/1961). Durkheim, similar to
Piaget, believed that morality resulted from social interaction or immersion in a
group. However, Durkheim believed moral development was a natural result of
attachment to the group, an attachment which manifests itself in a respect for the
symbols, rules, and authority of that group. Piaget rejected this belief that children
simply learn and internalize the norms for a group; he believed individuals define
morality individually through their struggles to arrive at fair solutions. Given this
view, Piaget suggested that a classroom teacher perform a difficult task: the educator
must provide students with opportunities for personal discovery through problem
solving, rather than indoctrinating students with norms.
 Lawrence Kohlberg (1969) modified and elaborated Piaget's work,
and laid the groundwork for the current debate within psychology on
moral development. Consistent with Piaget, he proposed that children
form ways of thinking through their experiences which include
understandings of moral concepts such as justice, rights, equality and
human welfare. Kohlberg followed the development of moral
judgment beyond the ages studied by Piaget, and determined that the process of
attaining moral maturity took longer and was more gradual than Piaget had proposed.

On the basis of his research, Kohlberg identified six stages of moral reasoning
grouped into three major levels. Each level represented a fundamental shift in the
social-moral perspective of the individual.

At the first level, the preconventional level, a person's moral judgments are
characterized by a concrete, individual perspective. Within this level, a Stage 1
heteronomous orientation focuses on avoiding breaking rules that are backed by
punishment, obedience for its own sake and avoiding the physical consequences of an
action to persons and property. As in Piaget's framework, the reasoning of Stage 1 is
characterized by ego-centrism and the inability to consider the perspectives of others.
At Stage 2 there is the early emergence of moral reciprocity. The Stage 2 orientation
focuses on the instrumental, pragmatic value of an action. Reciprocity is of the form,
"you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours." The Golden Rule becomes, "If someone
hits you, you hit them back." At Stage 2 one follows the rules only when it is to
someone's immediate interests. What is right is what's fair in the sense of an equal
exchange, a deal, an agreement. At Stage 2 there is an understanding that everybody
has his(her) own interest to pursue and these conflict, so that right is relative (in the
concrete individualist sense).

Individuals at the conventional level of reasoning, however, have a basic

understanding of conventional morality, and reason with an understanding that norms
and conventions are necessary to uphold society. They tend to be self-identified with
these rules, and uphold them consistently, viewing morality as acting in accordance
with what society defines as right. Within this level, individuals at Stage 3 are aware
of shared feelings, agreements, and expectations which take primacy over individual
interests. Persons at Stage 3 define what is right in terms of what is expected by
people close to one's self, and in terms of the stereotypic roles that define being good -
e.g., a good brother, mother, teacher. Being good means keeping mutual relationships,
such as trust, loyalty, respect, and gratitude. The perspective is that of the local
community or family. There is not as yet a consideration of the generalized social
system. Stage 4 marks the shift from defining what is right in terms of local norms
and role expectations to defining right in terms of the laws and norms established by
the larger social system. This is the "member of society" perspective in which one is
moral by fulfilling the actual duties defining one's social responsibilities. One must
obey the law except in extreme cases in which the law comes into conflict with other
prescribed social duties. Obeying the law is seen as necessary in order to maintain the
system of laws which protect everyone.

Finally, the post conventional level is characterized by reasoning based on principles,

using a "prior to society" perspective. These individuals reason based on the
principles which underlie rules and norms, but reject a uniform application of a rule or
norm. While two stages have been presented within the theory, only one, Stage 5, has
received substantial empirical support. Stage 6 remains as a theoretical endpoint
which rationally follows from the preceding 5 stages. In essence this last level of
moral judgment entails reasoning rooted in the ethical fairness principles from which
moral laws would be devised. Laws are evaluated in terms of their coherence with
basic principles of fairness rather than upheld simply on the basis of their place within
an existing social order. Thus, there is an understanding that elements of morality
such as regard for life and human welfare transcend particular cultures and societies
and are to be upheld irrespective of other conventions or normative obligations.

Moral Education

Kohlberg used these findings to reject traditional character education practices.

These approaches are premised in the idea that virtues and vices are the basis to moral
behavior, or that moral character is comprised of a "bag of virtues", such as honesty,
kindness, patience, strength, etc. According to the traditional approach, teachers are to
teach these virtues through example and direct communication of convictions, by
giving students an opportunity to practice these virtues, and by rewarding their
expression. However, critiques of the traditional approach find flaws inherent in this
model. This approach provides no guiding principle for defining what virtues are
worthy of espousal, and wrongly assumes a community consensus on what are
considered "positive values". In fact, teachers often end up arbitrarily imposing
certain values depending upon their societal, cultural, and personal beliefs. In order to
address this issue of ethical relativity, some have adopted the values-clarification
approach to moral education. This teaching practice is based on the assumption that
there are no single, correct answers to ethical dilemmas, but that there is value in
holding clear views and acting accordingly. In addition, there is a value of toleration
of divergent views. It follows, then, that the teacher's role is one of discussion
moderator, with the goal of teaching merely that people hold different values; the
teacher does attempt to present her views as the "right" views.

Kohlberg rejected the focus on values and virtues, not only due to the lack of
consensus on what virtues are to be taught, but also because of the complex nature of
practicing such virtues. For example, people often make different decisions yet hold
the same basic moral values. Kohlberg believed a better approach to affecting moral
behavior should focus on stages of moral development. These stages are critical, as
they consider the way a person organizes their understanding of virtues, rules, and
norms, and integrates these into a moral choice (Power, Higgins, & Kohlberg, 1989).
In addition, he rejected the relativist view point in favor of the view that certain
principles of justice and fairness represent the pinnacle of moral maturity, as he found
that these basic moral principles are found in different cultures and subcultures around
the world (Kohlberg & Turiel, 1971).
The goal of moral education, it then follows, is to encourage individuals to develop to
the next stage of moral reasoning. Initial educational efforts employing Kohlberg's
theory were grounded in basic Piagetian assumptions of cognitive development.
Development, in this model, is not merely the result of gaining more knowledge, but
rather consists of a sequence of qualitative changes in the way an individual thinks.
Within any stage of development, thought is organized according to the constraints of
that stage. An individual then interacts with the environment according to their basic
understandings of the environment. However, the child will at some point encounter
information which does not fit into their world view, forcing the child to adjust their
view to accommodate this new information. This process is called equilibration, and it
is through equilibration that development occurs. Early moral development
approaches to education, therefore, sought to force students to ponder contradiction
inherent to their present level of moral reasoning.

The most common tool for doing this was to present a "moral dilemma" (see
Classroom Practices) and require students to determine and justify what course the
actor in the dilemma should take. Through discussion, students should then be forced
to face the contradictions present in any course of action not based on principles of
justice or fairness.

While Kohlberg appreciated the importance and value of such moral dilemma
discussions, he held from very early on that moral education required more than
individual reflection, but also needed to include experiences for students to operate as
moral agents within a community. In this regard, Kohlberg reconciled some of the
differences in orientation that existed between the theories of moral growth held by
Piaget and Durkheim. In order to provide students with an optimal context within
which to grow morally, Kohlberg and his colleagues developed the "just community"
schools approach towards promoting moral development (Power, Higgins, &
Kohlberg, 1989). The basic premise of these schools is to enhance students' moral
development by offering them the chance to participate in a democratic community.
Here, democracy refers to more than simply casting a vote. It entails full participation
of community members in arriving at consensual rather than "majority rules"
decision-making. One primary feature of these schools is their relatively small size
(often they are actually schools within schools), aimed at providing the students with
a sense of belonging to a group which is responsive to individual needs. The central
institution of these schools is a community meeting in which issues related to life and
discipline in the schools are discussed and democratically decided, with an equal
value placed on the voices of students and teachers. An underlying goal of these
meetings is to establish collective norms which express fairness for all members of
the community. It is believed that by placing the responsibility of determining and
enforcing rules on students, they will take prosocial behavior more seriously. At the
same time, this approach stems from the cognitive-developmentalist view that
discussion of moral dilemmas can stimulate moral development.

However, this is not to say that just community school simply leaves students to their
own devices; teachers play a crucial leadership role in these discussions, promoting
rules and norms which have a concern for justice and community, and ultimately
enforcing the rules. This role is not an easy one, as teachers must listen closely and
understand a student's reasoning, in order to help the student to the next level of
reasoning. This requires a delicate balance between letting the students make
decisions, and advocating in a way which shows them the limits in their reasoning. A
primary advantage to the Just Community approach is its effectiveness in affecting
students actions, not just their reasoning. Students are, in effect, expected to "practice
what they preach", by following the rules determined in community meetings.