Lawrence Kohlberg (1958) agreed with Piaget's (1932) theory of moral development in
principle but wanted to develop his ideas further.
He used Piaget’s storytelling technique to tell people stories involving moral dilemmas. In
each case, he presented a choice to be considered, for example, between the rights of some
authority and the needs of some deserving individual who is being unfairly treated. One of
the best known of Kohlberg’s (1958) stories concerns a man called Heinz who lived
somewhere in Europe.
Heinz’s wife was dying from a particular type of cancer. Doctors said a new drug might
save her. The drug had been discovered by a local chemist, and the Heinz tried
desperately to buy some, but the chemist was charging ten times the money it cost to
make the drug, and this was much more than the Heinz could afford.
Heinz could only raise half the money, even after help from family and friends. He
explained to the chemist that his wife was dying and asked if he could have the drug
cheaper or pay the rest of the money later.
The chemist refused, saying that he had discovered the drug and was going to make
money from it. The husband was desperate to save his wife, so later that night he broke
into the chemist’s and stole the drug.
Kohlberg asked a series of questions such as:
1. Should Heinz have stolen the drug?
2. Would it change anything if Heinz did not love his wife?
3. What if the person dying was a stranger, would it make any difference?
4. Should the police arrest the chemist for murder if the woman died?
By studying the answers from children of different ages to these questions, Kohlberg
hoped to discover how moral reasoning changed as people grew older. The sample
comprised 72 Chicago boys aged 10–16 years, 58 of whom were followed up at three-yearly
intervals for 20 years (Kohlberg, 1984).
Each boy was given a 2-hour interview based on the ten dilemmas. What Kohlberg was
mainly interested in was not whether the boys judged the action right or wrong, but the
reasons given for the decision. He found that these reasons tended to change as the
children got older.
Kohlberg identified three distinct levels of moral reasoning: pre-conventional,
conventional, and post-conventional. Each level has two sub-stages.
People can only pass through these levels in the order listed. Each new stage replaces the
reasoning typical of the earlier stage. Not everyone achieves all the stages.
Level 1 - Pre-conventional morality
At the pre-conventional level (most nine-year-olds and younger, some over nine), we don’t
have a personal code of morality. Instead, our moral code is shaped by the standards of
adults and the consequences of following or breaking their rules.
Authority is outside the individual and reasoning is based on the physical consequences of
actions.
Authority is outside the individual and reasoning is based on the physical consequences of
actions.
• Stage 1. Obedience and Punishment Orientation. The child/individual is good in
order to avoid being punished. If a person is punished, they must have done wrong.
• Stage 2. Individualism and Exchange. At this stage, children recognize that there is
not just one right view that is handed down by the authorities. Different individuals have
different viewpoints.
Level 2 - Conventional morality
At the conventional level (most adolescents and adults), we begin to internalize the moral
standards of valued adult role models.
Authority is internalized but not questioned, and reasoning is based on the norms of the
group to which the person belongs.
• Stage 3. Good Interpersonal Relationships. The child/individual is good in order
to be seen as being a good person by others. Therefore, answers relate to the approval of
others.
• Stage 4. Maintaining the Social Order. The child/individual becomes aware of the
wider rules of society, so judgments concern obeying the rules in order to uphold the law
and to avoid guilt.
Level 3 - Post-conventional morality
Individual judgment is based on self-chosen principles, and moral reasoning is based on
individual rights and justice. According to Kohlberg this level of moral reasoning is as far
as most people get.
Only 10-15% are capable of the kind of abstract thinking necessary for stage 5 or 6 (post-
conventional morality). That is to say, most people take their moral views from those
around them and only a minority think through ethical principles for themselves.
• Stage 5. Social Contract and Individual Rights. The child/individual becomes
aware that while rules/laws might exist for the good of the greatest number, there are
times when they will work against the interest of particular individuals.
The issues are not always clear-cut. For example, in Heinz’s dilemma, the protection of life
is more important than breaking the law against stealing.
• Stage 6. Universal Principles. People at this stage have developed their own set of
moral guidelines which may or may not fit the law. The principles apply to everyone.
E.g., human rights, justice, and equality. The person will be prepared to act to defend these
principles even if it means going against the rest of society in the process and having to
pay the consequences of disapproval and or imprisonment. Kohlberg doubted few people
reached this stage.
