moral education theory

What Is “Moral Education”?

• Open Access
• First Online: 26 October 2021

Cite this chapter

You have full access to this open access chapter

• Barry Chazan 2  

14k Accesses

2 Citations

Moral education is one of the most significant arenas of preoccupation of analytic educational philosophy as well as of daily educational practice. Several significant alternative theories of moral education emerged in twentieth century philosophy of education.

It would seem that twenty-first century theory and practice of moral education reflects new realities, challenges, and responses.

This chapter is based on chapter 5 “The Moral Situation “in B. Chazan and Jonas Soltis, editors.( 1973 ). Moral Education . New York: Teachers College Press.

You have full access to this open access chapter,  Download chapter PDF

• The moral situation
• Moral socialization
• Moral thinking
• Moral caring

Moral education is one of the central concerns of philosophy of education. Over the years, it has been described using a variety of terms—“moral education”, “values education”, “ethics and education” and “character education”. Ultimately, these diverse appellations all focus on the question of “What is the role of education in making us moral and good human beings?”

In former times, discussion of the moral and the good was typically related to religious belief and practice and was often regarded as one of the central missions of religious education. The discussion of moral education was to change dramatically in the modern era when morality was no longer necessarily dependent on or a derivative of religious education. Modern discussions do not necessarily—if at all—tie moral and ethical spheres to religion. Rather, they focus on the role of morality in education in general.

The Moral Situation

The discussion of what “moral education” means very much depends on the clarification of a prior question: What are the issues a person faces when he/she is confronted by a moral situation that calls for a decision?

The first component of a moral situation is that it constitutes a moment in which one has to decide between alternative actions regarding what to do or how to behave. However, the need for a decision in itself is not the single determining dimension of being moral since there are many moments in which we have to make choices in matters of taste, interest, or mood that are a part of daily life in modern societies and are issues unrelated to morality (e.g., “Which of Baskin-Robbins’ thirty-one flavors should I choose today?”). Moral decision-making is about having to make a choice between conflicting core values and principles that force us to decide which is the right and wrong thing for us to do. Moral conflicts are generally not between right and wrong but rather between two rights or two wrongs. Heinz has a very sick wife whose life was in danger. There is one drug that can save her; it is sold in only one pharmacy and it is extremely expensive because the pharmacist has devoted many years to developing it. Heinz does not have enough money to pay for the drug nor is he able to recruit funds. Ultimately, he has only two options: (1) to steal the drug and face the consequences or (2) not to steal the drug and potentially be responsible for his wife’s death. What should he do and why? Footnote 1 Moral decisions are about practical situations involving principled beliefs about what is right or wrong good or bad. In former times, priests and other religious authorities told us what to do. In modern life, we confront the situation with no clerical or supernatural dictates, rather, with only our own conscience and self.

Such decision-making is not an abstract discussion of wise philosophers sitting in easy chairs and deliberating for hours, days, months, or a lifetime. Moral decisions are issues that each of us faces every day in the here and now, situations that are central to human life, that are intensely personal, and that require making a choice of following a course of action.

Approaches to Moral Education

The emergence of contemporary public education created a dilemma about the place of moral education in schooling. As indicated, in former times this type of education was in the bailiwick of religion, which prescribed specific choices and actions. The question for a contemporary public education not rooted in specific religious beliefs is whether there is a place for moral education in schools. If the answer is in the affirmative, then we are faced with questions as to the bases on which moral decisions made, what are the goals of moral education in public schooling, and what the roles and responsibilities of teachers might be.

French academic Emile Durkheim is often regarded as the father of the fields of sociology and of modern thinking about moral education. Durkheim, in his numerous writings about morality and education, established a framework that influenced educational thinking and practice for many decades (Durkheim 1961 ).

Durkheim regarded human beings as social animals, meaning that human life originates and exists within social frameworks. There is no existence without society. Consequently, morality is a system of behaviors reflecting what societies regard as “right” or “wrong”. For Durkheim, modern moral education is the activity of transmitting good and right behaviors of a society to its future citizens. He regarded the teacher as a “secularized” priest or prophet charged with the mission—by means of words, demeanor, and actions—of transmitting society’s core values and behaviors. For Durkheim, the teacher is a powerful and essential force in moral education, and, in fact, is much more important than the family. A family is ultimately focused on caring, supporting, and protecting its children, and it will always compromise on moral issues when its own children are involved. Thus, it is the educator who is charged with transmitting moral codes and enforcing moral behaviors in the young.

Durkheim did not prescribe a specific code of ethics—and he indicated that moral codes could change over time—yet he maintained that ethics relates ultimately to behaviors that are for the good of a society. He did acknowledge that it was sometimes necessary to revolt against the practices of a society if its current moral behaviors strayed from societal principles. In such cases, it was both legitimate and indeed a requirement to call a society to order and to chastise it for corrupting its own core principles. Thus, Durkheim did not regard Socrates, the biblical prophets or Jesus as malcontents, but rather as social critics protesting the turpitude and degeneration of Athenian and Israelite societies and pleading with its citizens to return to their fundamental values.

Durkheim believed that teachers should be models of morally correct behavior. Their mission is to transmit the core values of modern secular societies by pedagogy, personality, and public behavior. The teacher’s task is not simply to pass on knowledge verbally, but also to model “the good” and “the right”. At the same time, the teacher must be concerned that the moral sphere does not become mere habit; instead it should be linked to reflection and understanding of core social values. Durkheim indicated that a teacher’s authority must be tempered with benevolence and sensitivity to the frailty of the child and should not lapse into harshness.

The best pedagogic device for developing the social elements of moral education, according to Durkheim, is the utilization of the class as a social group for the nurturing of group pride, comradery, and loyalty. The school class should be the model for behaving according to a society’s highest and most worthy values. Durkheim’s approach to moral education is the first iteration of a secular theory and practice of moral education for contemporary life.

An important—albeit little known—contribution to the discussion of moral education is to be found in the writings of British educationist John Wilson (Wilson et al. 1967 ). Durkheim grounded the origins of moral education in sociology, while Wilson believed that philosophy was the basis of a theory of moral education rooted in moral deliberation and reflection. Wilson regarded moral education as a way of thinking about ethical issues rather than as a procedure for transmitting specific values to students. His emphasis was on individual inquiry and deliberation rather than societal imposition.

Wilson’s model of moral education was based on a thinking process, which encompassed identifying the moral dilemma; verifying the relevant facts and moral issues involved; and applying principles of reasoning and consideration of other people’s interests to enable moral action. This approach regarded the role of schooling to be the nurturing of the philosophic process of moral reasoning.

Wilson did acknowledge that in order to teach the process of deliberation and resolution, a teacher often would need to express a particular moral viewpoint, because to be neutral or passive is to omit one important part of the process of moral reasoning. At the same time, the role of teachers/educators is to teach the multi-dimensional patterns of moral thinking, rather than to serve as exemplars of moral action. Teachers should not model how students should behave but rather how they should model the dynamics of moral reasoning.

The rapid expansion of public schools in late twentieth-century American society led to the need for practical pedagogies and programs for implementing morals and values education in American schools. A group of educators committed to the practice of moral education in schools created an approach called “Values Clarification” (Raths et al. 1963 ). Values Clarification (VC) is rooted in the assumption that there is no clear or accepted set of moral values in contemporary life, and that the moral domain is a matter of personal choice and individual decision-making. Therefore, the VC approach states that teachers should not be allowed to impose their values or their behaviors and that their role in “values education’ is to develop a series of skill sets that would enable the child to become a valuing person. VC believed that classroom teachers could and should help the young focus on moral issues and help them learn how to make their own value decisions. The VC model encompasses a process with seven components: (1) Choosing freely; (2) Choosing from alternatives; (3) Choosing from alternatives after thoughtful consideration of the consequences of each alternative; (4) Valuing the choice; (5) Valuing the choice so much as to be willing to affirm the choice to others; (6) Acting in a certain way to reflect commitment to the choice one made; and (7) Acting repeatedly according to the choice that they made so that it becomes an imbedded form of moral behavior. In VC, the role of schooling in moral education is to train young people to be able to apply the seven stages of the process, rather than to be a “morally-educated person”.

The role of the VC teacher is to create classroom activities and pedagogies focused on developing the seven valuing processes. The VC teacher is a technician who facilitates the development of a series of thinking, feeling, and behavioral skills. Moreover, the VC teacher should not reveal his/her own moral preferences; indeed their personal moral lifestyle is totally irrelevant to their work. They are neither representatives of society nor models of advanced stages of thinking; rather, they are trainers of a set of necessary skill sets.

The VC proponents developed a series of pedagogic exercises, dialogue strategies, role-playing case studies, value sheets, and hundreds of activities falling into three main categories. One set of pedagogic tools focused on the strategy of valuing questions that caused the student to think about moral issues. Another strategy aimed to encourage students to express their own personal values and examine them. A third group of activities created guidelines for group discussion and processing to enable students to hear and react to different perspectives.

The academic world did not treat VC with the respect shown to other university-based moral education programs, probably because it was more shaped by teachers’ practical needs for engaging and compelling classroom materials rather than being rooted in philosophical or psychological models. The pragmatic aspect of VC should not be minimized because any theory of moral education can only truly be useful if it is accompanied by or leads to clear, accessible, and useful practical materials.

Lawrence Kohlberg was the most prominent name in twentieth-century moral education (Kohlberg 1968 , 1981 , 1983 ). A psychologist educated at the University of Chicago, Kohlberg spent his academic career as a professor at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, where he devoted his research, educational, and pedagogic interests to the subject of moral education, Kohlberg’s work was rooted in psychology and philosophy, and his focus was on the practice of education. His appeal and commitment to the field of moral education was profound, and he was singular in his quest for the synthesis of theory and practiceֹ.

Kohlberg’s approach to moral education rejected the position that morality was essentially a set of moral norms, while also rejecting the notion that morality was exclusively a matter of individual choice. Kohlberg believed that while individuals are raised and rooted in specific societies, at the same time they must deal with issues that are universal in nature and that extend beyond specific societal borders. Indeed, he regarded the moral sphere as a central domain of being human.

Based on his psychological research, Kohlberg developed a three-levelled classification of “types” or “orientations” of moral judgment. Level One of moral judgment (called the “pre-conventional”) refers to moral thinking and decision-making that is oriented toward (or shaped by) fear of punishment or pain. A person on this level makes moral decisions to avoid physical or other sorts of punishment and/or to satisfy egotistical needs. What is “good” or “right” is whatever prevents a person from getting yelled at or punished, or, conversely, gets them some candy. Level Two, moral reasoning (the “conventional level”) is oriented toward social expectations and behaviors—being a “good boy” or a “good girl” or doing what a good citizen in a particular city, society, or state is expected to do or not do. On this level, decisions are made in terms of adherence to accepted moral conventions. Level Three, moral thinking (the post-conventional), refers to individual decisions oriented to conscience, principles, and to the ultimate value of justice. In Level Three decision-making, we can sometimes be acting in accord with society but, ultimately, we are oriented to transcending societal norms.

These levels are generally assumed to be connected to three commonly accepted sociological stages in our biological development, that is, infancy; school-age; adolescence and emerging young adulthood; and adulthood. However, Kohlberg’s levels of moral development did not necessarily automatically synchronize with the standard model just described. Indeed, there are many adults who are preconventional or infantile in their moral decision-making processes, and there are also adolescents and young adults who are post-conventional or principled in their moral decision-making and development. Another important aspect of Kohlberg’s developmental notion is his belief that once people have reached a higher level of development, it is unlikely that they will regress to a lower level. One who has learned to live a life of principle (with all the complexities involved) will likely find it difficult not to live the principled life consistently.

Kohlberg was committed to the development of a theory as well as to its implementation in schools (and at a certain point he also tested its use in prisons). Kohlberg shared Durkheim’s emphasis on the importance of moral education in schools, although Kohlberg prescribed a much different pedagogy and practice. He shared some of Wilson’s philosophic thinking but was much more psychologically and practically oriented than Wilson. He agreed with VC’s emphasis on practice but rejected most of the other thinking of VC.

Kohlberg worked with a group of educators to create a five-step method for moral dilemma discussion: Step 1: A moral dilemma is read out loud to the class (Kohlberg created a group of approximately 16 dilemmas, indicating that dilemmas could also be selected from ancient texts, literary texts, and contemporary sources). After the reading, the teacher makes sure that the group has understood and agreed upon the main points presented in the dilemma.

Step 2: The teacher raises two questions about the dilemma: (1) What should the person facing the dilemma do? (2) Why? The “why” question is ultimately the central discussion topic for Kohlberg because it reflects the nature of a person’s orientation in terms of moral thinking . Step 3: The class breaks up into small groups to discuss the participants’ reactions. The reason for initially splitting into small groups is to make people feel comfortable to share their thoughts before reassembling. Step 4: A group discussion regarding what the protagonist should do and why. The teacher’s role is to listen, explicate, and, as much as possible, enable the participants to hear patterns that reflect all three levels of moral thinking. This stage is critical in enabling students to at least hear levels of thinking that are higher than theirs. Step 5: The teacher summarizes the entire exercise and, to the extent that there were presentations reflecting the three levels, briefly summarizes the three different ways of thinking. The teacher’s role is to explicate, not propagate views. This discussion section was very important to Kohlberg as he believed that enabling students to hear levels of thinking higher than their own and hopefully to be influenced accordingly. Moreover, it was important to demonstrate that moral deliberation and discussions are not simply empty talking but that issues of morality do, can, and should have solutions. The teacher’s role in the entire process is based on a familiarity with the three levels of thinking, an ability to utilize and model the Socratic method of questioning, a sensitivity to group dynamics, and the ability to summarize without preaching. Kohlberg’s influence was great for several decades in the second half of the twentieth century because it was both rooted in a philosophical and psychological theory of moral thinking and translated into actual educational processes.

Reactions to—and, in some cases, critique of—Kohlberg’s work led to a new late twentieth-century and twenty-first-century school of moral education denoted as “the caring approach” (also referred to as “the feminist approach”) (Larrabee 1993 ). One of the most prominent voices of the caring approach is philosopher of education Nel Noddings, who developed what she called, “a relational approach to ethics and moral education” (Noddings 2007 ). For Noddings, the core of ethics and moral education is not “moral thinking” but rather the human virtue known as “caring” which refers to a trait at the core of human life characterized by concern for the other. This virtue is rooted in the emergence of what it means to be human, which encompasses being able to be a caring person toward others and a person able to be cared for by others. While not a theological model, Noddings’ position reflects the humanistic assumptions of Martin Buber and others who regarded human life as a dialogue in which one learns to appreciate the other, be appreciated by the other, and ultimately develop an authentic interactive human relationship denoted as the “I-thou” (Buber 1958 ). According to this perspective, ethics is about the human virtues of intuitiveness and receptivity, rather than moral principles or reasoning. Noddings’ caring is not a universal moral principle but a core human virtue.

Noddings regards schools as central platforms and frameworks for the development of caring, and her writings pay much attention to the creation of schools and school communities as caring environments. The teacher is one who has chosen a profession rooted in caring and, ultimately, one of whose roles, if not the central role, is to turn the school into a laboratory for developing a caring community.

While the twentieth century was deeply preoccupied with the issue of moral education, there were (and always have been and will be) voices which reject the role of schooling in issues of morality. Here are some famous examples: “My grandmother wanted me to have an education, so she kept me out of school” (Margaret Mead); “Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything he learned in school. It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education” (Albert Einstein); “What does education often do? It makes a straight-cut ditch of a free and meandering brook (Henry David Thoreau); “It is our American habit, if we find the foundations of our educational structure unsatisfactory, to add another story or wing” (John Dewey); “Knowledge that is acquired under compulsion obtains no hold on the mind” (Plato).

The “anti-moral education” tradition is rooted in the notion that by its very nature almost any kind of schooling is a form of indoctrination. This tradition says that schools should only teach topics, subjects, and issues that are based on agreed-upon and established methodologies and facts. As the nature of morality is one of personal preference, moral content cannot be regarded as shared or public knowledge, thus it should not be taught in school.

The epistemological version of this argument says that schools should only teach verifiable and objective bodies of knowledge. So-called “moral knowledge” is neither verifiable nor objective in the same way as the sciences. Education should deal with only publicly verifiable and agreed-upon contents often characterized as scientific or rational.

The individualist argument claims that the individual is the primary unit in life and schools should be concerned with the liberation and autonomy of the individual rather than the promulgation of a particular ethic. It opposes moral education on the grounds that it becomes a means by which the state or some power group—men, colonialists, Caucasians, and other such power groups—imposes their specific value beliefs. Education should be about ownership of self, and children should have the potential to be free choosing agents rather than be manipulated by a church or synagogue, big business, white capitalists, or gender-specific worldviews.

The empirical evaluative critique of moral education is fact-based rather than ideological, stating that there is no valid or reliable empirical data to validate the value of moral education in schools. Its argument is that research shows that schooling is not a very important factor in affecting people’s morality and hence the entire enterprise of implementation in schools is a waste of time and money. Schools should do what they do best, and they should not attempt to undertake an impossible task.

It is indeed legitimate to raise questions about moral education within public education. Are schools the tools of “power brokers” or interest groups or are schools simply incapable of having an impact on the moral sphere? The anti-moral educationists are good souls and not simply ornery troublemakers, and they do bring to our attention the potentially manipulative nature of schools, which may indeed serve the “power brokers” rather than “the powerless”.

Into the Twenty-First Century

Thinking about moral education has taken some new directions in the twenty-first century. The language of “moral education” has seemed to shift to the term “character education” and philosophic thinking has focused on virtues, with less of an emphasis on moral principles and judgments (Zagzebski 1966 ). The entire field of morality has been influenced by new trends in research within developmental psychology, neurology, and sociology that have been generally shaped by the neurosciences. Psychologist Vivian Gopnik indicates “that babies and young children are not the immoral creatures we thought them to be. Even the youngest babies have a striking capacity for empathy and altruism” (Gopnik 2009 ). The emerging field of neuro-education has been described as “the hot new area in education” (Klemm 1996 ).

Thinking about morality and education in the twenty-first century has also been shaped by a painful dynamic unrelated to the pastoral groves of the Academy. The hallways and sanctuaries of our schools, houses of worship, and other areas of public assembly have been desecrated by violence, shooting, destruction, and death. There is no need for Kohlberg’s fictional dilemmas; daily life on the West Coast and the East Coast, north and south, and even in the holy chambers of the Congress of the United States, have become a living pandemic of moral crisis, dilemma, and failure. Indeed, snapchat, smartphones, and on-site television cameras are writing the next sagas and stories of moral education in the twenty-first century.

It should come as no surprise that the subject of teaching morals and values has been a central arena of contemplation, thought, and practice in the world of education. From ancient times until today, there has been a sense of connection between education and being a good or moral person. As we have seen, there are many approaches to this subject, and it continues to preoccupy those who believe that education is related to how we live as human beings. The twentieth century was an extremely dramatic arena for reflection and the implementation of the diverse approaches to moral education. The twenty-first century is proving to be a painfully vivid setting highlighting the need for moral education and a moral way. Indeed, I think it is fair to say that moral education continues to be one of the central pressing and eternally important elements of the life and work of the world of education.

This is one of a series of dilemmas created by Lawrence Kohlberg for his dilemma discussion practice.

Bibliography

Buber, Martin. 1958. I and Thou . (Scribner Classics).

Google Scholar  

Chazan, B. and Soltis, J. , editors (1973). Moral Education. Teachers College Press.

Durkheim, Emile, 1961 . Moral Education. (Free Press).

Gopnik, Alison 2009. The Philosophical Baby . (Farrar, Straus and Giroux).

Klemm, William. 1996. Understanding Neuroscience. (Mosby).

Kohlberg, Lawrence. 1968. “The Child As Moral Philosopher” Psychology Today (Sept, 1968), pp. 25–30.

Kohlberg, Lawrence editor, 1981. The Philosophy of Moral Development . (Harper and Row).

Kohlberg, Lawrence editor 1983. The Psychology of Moral Development . (Harper and Row).

Larrabee, Mary Jeanne. 1993. editor. An Ethic of Caring. (Routledge).

Noddings, Nel. 2013. Caring: A Relational Approach to Ethics and Moral Education . (University of California Press).

Noddings, Nel. 2007. “Aims, Goals, Objectives” in Encounters on Education , Vol 8, Fall, 2007, pp. 7–15.

Raths, Louis,, Harmin Merrill, Simon, Sidney. 1963. Values and teaching. (Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company).

Wilson, John, Williams Norman, Sugarman, Barry. (1967). Introduction to Moral Education .

Zagzebski, Linda. 1966. Virtues of the Mind An Inquiry Into the Nature of Virtue and the Ethical Foundations of knowledge. (Cambridge University Press).

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Graduate School of Education and Human Development, George Washington University, Washington, D.C., WA, USA

Barry Chazan

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Chazan, B. (2022). What Is “Moral Education”?. In: Principles and Pedagogies in Jewish Education. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83925-3_4

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83925-3_4

Published : 26 October 2021

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-83924-6

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-83925-3

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

5 Theory of Moral Development

At the end of this chapter, you will be able to:

• Identify key elements of the theory of moral development
• Explain strategies utilized to implement the theory of moral development
• Summarize the criticisms of the theory of moral development and educational implications
• Explain how equity is impacted by the theory of moral development
• Identify classroom strategies to support the use of the theory of moral development
• Select strategies to support student success utilizing the theory of moral development
• Develop a plan to implement the use of the theory of moral development

SCENARIO: It was late and Ms. Brown was still grading a pile of essays as she sipped her cold coffee. Despite her fatigue, she started to notice a similar pattern in several of the essays with similar misspellings and grammatical errors. In other essays, students referenced complicated academic language and  concepts that were not relevant to the topic. In these cases, it became clear that the language of the essay did not match the students’ academic level. Ultimately, she determined that potentially one third of the class did not turn in original work. How can a teacher assess work that is not the work of the student? What is the educator’s responsibility with cheating? Why does it matter?

Discussing morality can be a touchy subject because we do not all agree on what might constitute moral behavior, and it is important to acknowledge that much damage historically has been done by people holding others to a certain moral code. Nonetheless, humanity survives due to a largely unspoken collection of  moral behaviors. Therefore, it is quite relevant to our development as humans, and hence critical for educators to understand. In this chapter, you will learn about the developmental stages of moral development and what might be useful for educators to know.

    Image 5.2

Introduction.

Lawrence Kohlberg (1927-1987) was a 20th century psychologist known primarily for his research into moral psychology and development. Kohlberg grew up in Bronxville, NY and served in the Merchant Marines at the end of World War II. Kohlberg worked with a paramilitary organization to help smuggle Jewish refugees from Romania through a British Blockade into Palestine, and was captured by the British and held in an internment camp on Cyprus. He and fellow crew members escaped and went to Palestine during the fighting to establish the state of Israel. Kohlberg refused to participate in the fighting and instead preferred nonviolent forms of activism. He returned to the US in 1948 and enrolled at the University of Chicago, where he eventually received his bachelor’s and doctoral degrees in psychology.

Kohlberg’s dissertation was based on his research into the moral choices of adolescent boys and led to a life devoted to the exploration of moral and ethical development in young people.

Kohlberg’s stages of moral development were influenced by the Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget’s stage-based theory of cognitive development. Kohlberg expanded on Piaget’s cognitive development stages to form the six stages of moral development. He argued that correct moral reasoning was the most significant factor in moral decision-making, and that correct moral reasoning would lead to ethical behavior. Kohlberg believed that individuals progress through stages of moral development just as they progress through stages of cognitive development. Kohlberg’s theory of moral development included three levels and six stages to determine which stage of moral development his subjects were in, Kohlberg presented them with invented moral dilemmas, such as the case of a man who stole medicine for his sick wife. According to Kohlberg, few people reach stages five and six; most tend to stay at stage four.

Lawrence Kohlberg’s stages of moral development constitute an adaptation of a psychological theory originally conceived of by the Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget.  Kohlberg began work on this topic while a psychology postgraduate student at the University of Chicago in 1985, and expanded and developed this theory throughout his life.

The theory holds that  moral reasoning, the basis for ethical behavior, has six identifiable developmental stages, each more adequate at responding to moral dilemmas than its predecessor. Kohlberg followed the development of moral judgment far beyond the ages studied earlier by Piaget, who also claimed that logic and morality develop through constructive stages. Expanding on Piaget’s work, Kohlberg determined that the process of moral development was principally concerned with justice, and that it continued throughout the individual’s lifetime.

Kohlberg relied for his studies on stories such as the Heinz dilemma,   and was interested in how individuals would justify their actions if placed in similar moral dilemmas. He then analyzed the form of moral reasoning displayed, rather than its conclusion, and classified it as belonging to one of six distinct stages.

Video 5.1: “Heinz Dilemma Edited”  

Kohlberg’s scale is about how people justify behaviors. It is important to clarify that his stages are not a method of ranking how moral someone’s behavior is. There should however be a correlation between how someone scores on the scale and how they behave, and the general hypothesis is that moral behavior is more responsible, consistent and predictable from people at higher levels.

Kohlberg’s six stages (Figure 5.1) can be more generally grouped into three levels of two stages each: pre-conventional, conventional and post-conventional. Following Piaget’s constructivist requirements for a stage model, as described in his theory of cognitive development, it is extremely rare to regress in stages-to lose the use of higher stage abilities. Stages cannot be skipped; each provides a new and necessary perspective, more comprehensive and differentiated than its predecessors but integrated with them.

Levels and Stages of Moral Development

Figure 5.1: levels and stages of moral development.

Pre-Conventional Level (Level 1):

• The pre-conventional level of moral reasoning is especially common in children, although adults can also exhibit this level of reasoning.
• Reasoners at this level judge the morality of an action by its direct consequences.
• The pre-conventional level consists of the first and second stages of moral development, and is solely concerned with the self in an egocentric manner.
• A child with pre-conventional morality has not yet adopted or internalized society’s conventions regarding what is right or wrong, but instead focuses largely on external consequences that certain actions may bring.

Stage 1 (obedience and punishment driven)

• Individuals focus on the direct consequences of their actions on themselves. For example, an action is perceived as morally wrong because the perpetrator is punished. “The last time I did that I got spanked so I will not do it again.” The worse the punishment for the act is, the more “bad” the act is perceived to be. This can give rise to an inference that even innocent victims are guilty in proportion to their suffering. It is “egocentric,” lacking recognition that others’ points of view are different from one’s own.

Stage 2 (self-interest driven)

• Espouses the “what’s in it for me” position, in which right behavior is defined by whatever is in the individual’s best interest.
• Stage two reasoning shows a limited interest in the needs of others, but only to a point where it might further the individual’s own interests.
• As a result, concern for others is not based on loyalty or intrinsic respect, but rather a “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” mentality. The lack of a societal perspective in the pre-conventional level is quite different from the social contract (Stage Five), as all actions have the purpose of serving the individual’s own needs or interests. For the stage two theorists, the world’s perspective is often seen as  morally relative.

Conventional Level (Level 2):

• The conventional level of moral reasoning is typical of adolescents and adults.
• Those who reason in a conventional way judge the morality of actions by comparing them to society’s views and expectations.
• The conventional level consists of the third and fourth stages of moral development.
• Conventional morality is characterized by an acceptance of society’s conventions concerning right and wrong.
• At this level an individual obeys rules and follows society’s norms even when there are no consequences for obedience or disobedience.
• Adherence to rules and conventions is somewhat rigid, however, and a rule’s appropriateness or fairness is seldom questioned.

Stage 3 (interpersonal accord and conformity driven)

• The self enters society by filling social roles.
•  Individuals are receptive to approval or disapproval from others as it reflects society’s accordance with the perceived role.
• They try to be a “good boy” or “good girl” to live up to these expectations, having learned that there is inherent value in doing so.
• Stage three reasoning may judge the morality of an action by evaluating its consequences in terms of a person’s relationships, which now begin to include things like respect, gratitude, and the “golden rule”.
• “I want to be liked and thought well of; apparently, not being naughty makes people like me.” Desire to maintain rules and authority exists only to further support these social roles. The intentions of actions play a more significant role in reasoning at this stage; “they mean well … “

Stage 4 (authority and social order obedience driven)

• It is important to obey laws,  dictums and social conventions because of their importance in maintaining a functioning society.
• Moral reasoning in stage four is thus beyond the need for individual approval exhibited in stage three; society must learn to transcend individual needs.
• A central ideal or ideals often prescribe what is right and wrong, such as in the case of fundamentalism.
• If one person violates a law, perhaps everyone would-thus there is an obligation and a duty to uphold laws and rules. 
• When someone does violate a law, it is morally wrong;  culpability is thus a significant factor in this stage as it separates the bad domains from the good ones.
• Most active members of society remain at stage four, where morality is still predominantly dictated by an outside force.

Post-Conventional Level:

• The post-conventional level, also known as the principled level, consists of stages five and six of moral development.
• There is a growing realization that individuals are separate entities from society, and that the individual’s own perspective may take precedence over society’s view; they may disobey rules inconsistent with their own principles.
• These people live by their own abstract principles about right and wrong principles that typically include such basic human rights as life, liberty, and justice. Because of this level’s “nature of self before others,” the behavior of post-conventional individuals, especially those at stage six, can be confused with that of those at the preconventional level.
• People who exhibit post-conventional morality view rules as useful but changeable mechanisms; ideally rules can maintain the general social order and protect human rights. Rules are not absolute dictates that must be obeyed without question.
• Contemporary theorists often speculate that many people may never reach this level of abstract moral reasoning.

Stage 5 (social contract driven)

• The world is viewed as holding different opinions, rights and values. Such perspectives should be mutually respected as unique to each person or community.
• Laws are regarded as social contracts rather than rigid edicts.
• Those that do not promote general welfare should be changed when necessary to meet “the greatest good for the greatest number of people.”
• This is achieved through majority decision, and inevitable compromise.
• Democratic government is ostensibly based on stage five reasoning.

Stage 6 (universal ethical principles driven)

• Moral reasoning is based on abstract reasoning using universal ethical principles.
• Laws are valid only insofar as they are grounded in justice, and a commitment to justice carries with it an obligation to disobey unjust laws.
• Legal rights are unnecessary, as social contracts are not essential for deontic moral action.
• Decisions are not reached hypothetically in a conditional way but rather categorically in an absolute way.
• This involves an individual imagining what they would do in another’s shoes, if they believed what that other person imagines to be true.
• The resulting consensus is the action taken. In this way action is never a means but always an end in itself; the individual acts because it is right, and not because it is instrumental, expected, legal, or previously agreed upon.

Although Kohlberg insisted that stage six exists, he found it difficult to identify individuals who consistently operated at that level.

Further Stages

In Kohlberg’s empirical studies of individuals throughout their life Kohlberg observed that some had apparently undergone moral stage regression. This could be resolved either by allowing for moral regression or by extending the theory. Kohlberg chose the latter, postulating the existence of sub-stages in which the emerging stage has not yet been fully integrated into the personality. In particular Kohlberg noted a stage 4+, a transition from stage four to stage five, which shared characteristics of both. In this stage the individual is disaffected with the arbitrary nature of law and order reasoning; culpability is frequently turned from being defined by society to viewing society itself as culpable. This stage is often mistaken for the moral relativism of stage two, as the individual views those interests of society that conflict with their own as being relatively and morally wrong. Kohlberg noted that this was often observed in students entering college.

Kohlberg suggested that there may be a seventh stage-Transcendental Morality, or Morality of Cosmic Orientation-which linked religion with moral reasoning. Kohlberg’s difficulties in obtaining empirical evidence for even a sixth stage, however, led him to emphasize the speculative nature of his seventh stage.

Theoretical Assumptions (Philosophy)

The picture of human nature Kohlberg begins with is that humans are inherently communicative and capable of reason. They also possess a desire to understand others and the world around them. The stages of Kohlberg’s model relate to the qualitative moral reasonings adopted by individuals, and so do not translate directly into praise or blame of any individual’s actions or character. Arguing that his theory measures moral reasoning and not particular moral conclusions, Kohlberg insists that the form and structure of moral arguments is independent of the content of those arguments, a position he calls “formalism” (Figure 5.2).

  Figure 5.2 Formal Elements

According to Kohlberg, someone progressing to a higher stage of moral reasoning cannot skip stages. For example, an individual cannot jump from being concerned mostly with peer judgments (stage three) to being a proponent of social contracts (stage five). On encountering a moral dilemma and finding their current level of moral reasoning unsatisfactory, however, an individual will look to the next level. Realizing the limitations of the current stage of thinking is the driving force behind moral development, as each progressive stage is more adequate than the last. The process is therefore considered to be constructive, as it is initiated by the conscious construction of the individual, and is not in any meaningful sense a component of the individual’s innate dispositions, or a result of past inductions.

Progress through Kohlberg’s stages happens as a result of the individual’s increasing competence, both psychologically and in balancing conflicting social-value claims. Knowledge and learning contribute to moral development. Specifically important are the individual’s “view of persons” and their “social perspective level,” each of which becomes more complex and mature with each advancing stage. The “view of persons” can be understood as the individual’s grasp of the psychology of other persons; it may be pictured as a spectrum, with stage one having no view of other persons at all, and stage six being entirely socio-centric. Similarly, the social perspective level involves the understanding of the social universe, differing from the view of persons in that it involves an appreciation of social norms.

Examples of Applied Moral Dilemmas

Kohlberg established the Moral Judgement Interview in his original 1958 dissertation. During the roughly 45-minute tape recorded semi-structured interview, the interviewer uses moral dilemmas to determine which stage of moral reasoning a person uses. The dilemmas are fictional short stories that describe situations in which a person has to make a moral decision. The participant is asked a systemic series of open-ended questions , like what they think the right course of action is, as well as justifications as to why certain actions are right or wrong. The form and structure of these replies are scored and not the content; over a set of multiple moral dilemmas an overall score is derived.

Heinz Dilemma

A dilemma that Kohlberg used in his original research was the druggist’s dilemma: Heinz Steals the Drug in Europe. From a theoretical point of view, it is not important what the participant thinks that Heinz should do. Kohlberg’s theory holds that the justification the participant offers is what is significant, the form of their response. Below are some of many examples of possible arguments that belong to the six stages:

• Stage 1 (obedience): Heinz should not steal the medicine because he would consequently be put in prison, which would mean he is a bad person. Or: Heinz should steal the medicine because it is only worth $200, not how much the druggist wanted for it. Heinz had even offered to pay for it and was not stealing anything else.
• Stage 2   (self-interest): Heinz should steal the medicine because he will be much happier if he saves his wife, even if he will have to serve a prison sentence. Or: Heinz should not steal the medicine because prison is an awful place, and he would probably experience anguish over a jail cell more than his wife’s death.
• Stage 3 (conformity): Heinz should steal the medicine because his wife expects it; he wants to be a good husband. Or: Heinz should not steal the drug because stealing is bad and he is not a criminal; he tried to do everything he could without breaking the law, you cannot blame him.
• Stage 4 (law-and-order): Heinz should not steal the medicine because the law prohibits stealing, making it illegal. Or: Heinz should steal the drug for his wife but also take the prescribed punishment for the crime as well as paying the druggist what he is owed. Criminals cannot just run around without regard for the law; actions have consequences.
• Stage 5 (human rights): Heinz should steal the medicine because everyone has a right to choose life, regardless of the law. Or: Heinz should not steal the medicine because the scientist has a right to fair compensation. Even if his wife is sick, it does not make his actions right.
• Stage 6 (universal human ethics): Heinz should steal the medicine, because saving a human life is a more fundamental value than the property rights of another person. Or: Heinz should not steal the medicine, because others may need the medicine just as badly, and their lives are equally significant.

Criticisms of the Theory of Moral Development

One criticism of Kohlberg’s theory is that it emphasizes justice to the exclusion of other values, and so may not adequately address the arguments of those who value other moral aspects of actions.

In addition, Kohlberg’s theory was initially developed based on empirical research using only male participants.  Carol Gilligan, a former student of Kohlberg, argued that Kohlberg’s theory is overly androcentric and did not adequately describe the concerns of women although research has generally found no significant pattern of differences in moral development between sexes.

Next, Kohlberg’s stages are not immune to cultural influences because individuals in different cultures seem to go through Kohlberg’s  stages at different rates. Kohlberg has responded by saying that although different cultures persistently promote different beliefs, his stages correspond to underlying modes of reasoning, rather than to those beliefs.

Lastly, other psychologists have questioned the assumption that moral action is primarily a result of formal reasoning. Social intuitionists such as Jonathan Haidt, for example, argue that individuals often make moral judgments without weighing concerns such as fairness, law,  human rights, or abstract ethical values.

Educational Implications

In assisting students with moral and character development, it is acknowledged that morals and character traits/attributes come into play within a rapidly changing context. Teachers cannot teach students all the specific knowledge, values, or behaviors that will lead to success in all aspects of their lives. Teachers must, therefore, acknowledge that some values are relative and teach students to develop their own views accordingly. At the same time, teachers must acknowledge that there are some absolutes with respect to morality and character that are accepted as commonalties among members of specific communities, major world religions, and moral philosophers.  ( Moral and Character Development in Education (Huitt, 2004).)

Moral and character development is integral to the development of self (Ashton & Huitt, 1980), and is as much the responsibility of early caregivers as it is of later educators. Nucci (1989) showed that “children’s moral understandings were independent of specific religious concepts” and that both secular and religious children focus “on the same set of fundamental interpersonal issues: those pertaining to justice and compassion” (p. 195). In sum, parents, educators, affiliates of religious and secular organizations, and community members have an obligation to provide young people with training appropriate to their age level that would assist them in holding to the absolutes that are common across philosophies and beliefs of the major religious traditions, while at the same time helping them develop and defend own acquired values.

Wynne (1989) reports that the quality of relationships among faculty (and between the faculty and adults in authority) is a major factor in the development of student character. An atmosphere of adult harmony is vitally important. According to Wynne, schools effectively assisting student character development are: (paraphrased into contemporary terms)

• Teachers who interact in a firm sensitive manner
• High standards
• Different opportunities for interaction and connection ( in and out of the classroom)
• Recognition of positive behavior
• Promote shared experiences (collective identity) through ceremonies, songs slogans
• Structured discipline with clear consequences
• Appropriate academic rigor
• Connect with families and communities to support school
• Resourceful
• Able to relate adult concerns to how they impact young people

The educational system must prepare individuals to progress in each of these arenas of life. Therefore, character development must be seen as an organic process in the development of the material/physical, human/psychological, and spiritual/transcendental aspects of human beings.  

By the early 2000s, character education had become the fastest growing school reform movement (Kline, 2017). According to the US Department of Education website, (n.d.) character education is defined as a learning process that enables students and adults in a school community to understand, care about and act on core ethical values such as respect, justice, civic virtue and citizenship, and responsibility for self and others. Thus a set of morally desirable traits exists and these traits should be purposefully taught in schools (Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, 2004; McClellan, 1999; Prestwich, 2004). Huitt (2004) identified a list of moral and character attributes/traits as the focus for K-12 schools (Figure 5.3) based on data results collected in south GA. Those attributes/traits can be integrated into the curriculum to assist young people strive for excellence in both character and competencies. Lesson Plan examples from Figure 5.4 to Figure 5.8) are just a few.

Figure 5.3: Attributes/Character Traits for Moral and Character Development

The Lesson Plan is a great place for teachers to start teaching and supporting moral and character development in the classroom. Below are several examples of teaching and supporting moral and character development in a variety of subject areas across various grade levels:

Figure 5.4: Teaching Trait Honesty in Language Arts

Figure 5.5: teaching trait integrity in social studies/health, figure 5.6: teaching traits cooperation and determination in science/health, figure 5.7: teaching traits self-discipline and responsibility in music, figure 5.8: teaching traits respect for self and respect for others in reading/language arts, health, and mathematics.

Video 5.2: “Carol Gilligan on Women and Moral Development” 

Chapter Discussion Questions:

• Explain how teaching decision making by using ethical dilemmas can support student success?
• How would you summarize Kohlberg’s theory of moral development?
• How would you use the theory of moral development to support your students?
• How is equity related to the theory of moral development?

ATTRIBUTIONS

Image 5.1: “Morals Picture” by RM Media Ltd is licensed under CC BY 3.0

Image 5.2: “Choices” by Dan Moyle is licensed under CC BY 2.0

Image 5.3: “Woman Teacher Cartoon” by K Whiteford is licensed under CC BY 1.0 Video 5.1: “Heinz Dilemma Edited” by Marissa Hanks

Video 5.2: “Carol Gilligan on Women and Moral Development” by Big Think

Academic Dishonesty. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.mnsu.edu/cetl/teachingresources/articles/academicdishonesty.html

Ashton, P., & Huitt, W. (1980). Egocentrism-sociocentrism: The dynamic interplay in moral development. In J. Magary, P. Taylor, & G. Lubin (Eds.), Piagetian theory and the helping professions (Vol. 9, pp. 293-297). Chicago, IL: Association for the Study of Piagetian Theory.

Clouse, B. (2001). Moral education: Borrowing from the past to advance the future. Contemporary Education , 72(1), 2328.

Editorial projects in education research center. (2004, August 3). Issues A-Z: Character education. Education Week. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/character-education/

Geddes, K. A. (2011). Academic dishonesty among gifted and high-achieving students. Gifted Child Today, 34(2), 50-56.

Haggbloom, S. J., Warnick, R., Waarnick, J. E., Jones, V., K., Yarbrough, G. L., McGahhey, R., … Monte, E. (2002). The 100 most eminent psychologists of the 20th century. Review of General Psychology , 6(2), 139-154. doi: 10.1037/10892680.6.2.139

Hartshorne, H., & May, M. (1928-1930). Studies in the nature of character . New York, NY: Macmillan.

Hartshorne, H., & May, M. (1930). A summary of the work of the character education inquiry. Religious Education , 25, 607-619, 754-762.

Honz, K., Kiewra, K. A., & Yang, Y. (2010). Cheating perceptions and prevalence across academic settings. Mid-Western Educational Researcher , 23 (2), 10-17.

Huitt, W. (2004). Moral and character development. Educational Psychology Interactive . Valdosta, GA. Retrieved from http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/morchr/morchr.html

James, R. (1979). Development in judging moral issues . Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Kline, J. T. (2017). Morality, cheating, and the purpose of public education . Retrieved from http://preserve.lehigh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3663&context=etd

Leming, J. S. (1993). Synthesis of research / in search of effective moral education. Educational Leadership , 51(3), 63-71. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/nov93/vol51/num03/Synthesis-of-Research- In-Search-of-Effective-Character-Education.aspx

Leming, J. S. (2008). Research and practice in moral and character education: Loosely coupled phenomena. In L. P. Nucci & D. Narvaez (Eds.), Handbook of moral and character education (pp. 134-157). New York, NY: Routledge.

McCabe, D. L., & Trevino, L. K. (1993). Academic dishonesty: Honor codes and other contextual influences. The Journal of Higher Education , 64(5), 522-538.

McClellan, B. E. (1999). Moral education in America: Schools and the shaping of character from colonial times to the present (1st ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.

Nucci, L. (1989). Challenging conventional wisdom about morality: The domain approach to values education. In L. Nucci (Ed.), Moral development and character education: A dialogue (pp. 183-203). Berkley, CA: McCutchan.

Nucci, L. P. (2009). Nice is not enough: Facilitating moral development . Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Prestwich, D. L. (2004). Moral education in America’s Schools. School Community Journal , 14(1), 139-150.

Santrock, J. (2018). Educational psychology (6th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.

Schab, F. (1991). Schooling without learning: Thirty years of cheating in high school. Adolescence , 2(5(104), 839-847.

Thoma, S. J., & Dong, Y. (2014). The defining issues test of moral judgment development. Behavioral Development Bulletin , 19(3), 55-61.

Williams, L. K. (2012). Cheating incidences, perceptions of cheating, and the moral development level of college students. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1009056995

Woolfolk, A. (2015). Educational psychology (13th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Wynne, E. (1989). Transmitting traditional values in contemporary schools. In L. Nucci, Moral development and character education: A dialogue (pp. 19-36). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

ADDITIONAL READING

Credible Articles on the Internet:

Barger, R. (2000). Kohlberg. Retrieved from http://www.csudh.edu/dearhabermas/kohlberg01bk.htm

Barger, R. N. (2000). Summary and inspiration for Kohlberg’s theory of moral development stages. Retrieved from http://www.csudh.edu/dearhabermas/kohlberg01bk.htm

Crain, W. C. (1985). Theories of development . Retrieved from http://view2.fdu.edu/site-downloads/8266

Davis, D. (2010). Kohlberg’s moral stages. Retrieved from http: //www .haverford.edu/psych/ddavis/p109g/kohlberg .stages .html

Domain based moral education. Retrieved from http://www.moraledk12.org/

Huitt, W. (2004). Values. Educational Psychology Interactive . Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Retrieved from http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/affect/values.html

Garrett, J. (2003). Theories of cognitive and moral development. Retrieved from http://people.wku.edu/jan.garrett/cogmordv.htm

Kohlberg’s ideas of moral reasoning. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://web.cortland.edu/andersmd/KOHL/kidmoral.HTML Kohlberg’s stages of moral development. (2009). Retrieved from http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development

McLeod, S. (2011). Kohlnberg. Retrieved from http://www.simplypsychology.org/kohlberg.html

Moral development and moral education: An overview. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.moraledk12.org/#!about- mde/c1se

Sax, R. (2005). Do the right thing: Cognitive science’s search for a common morality. Retrieved from http://www.bostonreview.net/rebecca-saxe-common-morality-cognitive-science

Peer-Reviewed Journal Articles:

Armon, C., & Dawson, T. L. (1997). Developmental trajectories in moral reasoning across the life span. Journal of Moral Education , 25 (4), 433-453.

Baxter, G. D., & Rarick, C. A. (1987). Education for the moral development of managers: Kohlberg’s stages of moral development and integrative education. Journal of Business Ethics (1986-1998), 5(3), 243.

Blum, L. (1999). Race, community and moral education: Kohlberg and Spielberg as civic educators. Journal of Moral Education , 28(2), 125-143.

Bruess, B. J., & Pearson, F. C. (2002). The debate continues: Are there gender differences in moral reasoning as defined by Kohlberg? College Student Affairs Journal , 21 (2), 38-52.

Henry, S. E. (2001). What happens when we use Kohlberg? His troubling functionalism and the potential of pragmatism in moral education. Educational Theory , 51(3), 259.

Kirschenbaum, H. (1976). Clarifying values clarification: Some theoretical issues and a review of research. Group & Organization Studies (Pre-1986), 1(1), 99.

Kohlberg L. (1966). Moral development in the schools: A developmental view. The School Review , 74(1), 1-30.

Osen, F. K. (1996). Kohlberg’s dormant ghosts: The case of education. Journal of Moral Education , 25(3), 253-273.

Thompson, R., Laible, D., & Ontai, L. (2006). Early understanding of emotion, morality, and the self: Developing a working model. In R. Kail (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 31). San Diego, CA: Academic. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.662.2102&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Weinstock, M., Assor, A., & Broide, G. (2009). Schools as promoters of moral judgment: The essential role of teachers’ encouragement of critical thinking. Social Psychology of Education: An International Journal , 12(1), 137-151.

Books at Dalton State College Library:

Sheehy, N. (2004). Fifty key thinkers in psychology . New York, NY: Routledge.

Slater, A., & Quinn, P. C. (2012). Developmental psychology: Revisiting the classic studies . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Videos and Tutorials

Child development theorists: Freud to Erikson to Spock and beyond. (2009). Retrieved from Films on Demand database.

Khan Academy. (2014). Kohlberg moral development. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Onkd8tChC2A  

Educational Learning Theories Copyright © 2023 by Sam May-Varas, Ed.D.; Jennifer Margolis, PhD; and Tanya Mead, MA is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development

Strategies to manage common health complications of women, exceptionality: special education insights.

• Is Revenge the Right thing to do? A recent study shows how Perception varies for Avengers
• Study: Inner Speech Can Improve Verbal Ability

Your cart is empty

• by Psychologs Magazine
• May 15, 2024
• 5 minutes read

The subject of how individuals evolved morally has arisen over time. Lawrence Kohlberg (1969) utilizes his theories to expand Piaget’s (1932) theory of development and establish the framework for the present psychological discussion about the continuous processing of morals. He used Piaget’s narrative techniques to demonstrate moral dilemmas such as authority rights, individuals being treated unfairly, and the best-known Heinz dilemma (Sanders, 2018).

According to Kohlberg, moral growth is a continuous process that takes place throughout one’s life. Kohlberg’s theory has recently been attacked for its Western-centric approach, which is centred on upper and middle-class ideals.

Read More: The psychology behind Morality

The theoretical framework

Kohlberg’s theoretical framework is made up of six phases that are grouped successively into more complicated levels. He divided his six phases into three broad categories of moral growth.

Level 1: Preconventional level

At the pre-conventional stage, morality is externally regulated. Rules enforced by authoritative persons are followed to avoid punishment or get rewards. This viewpoint holds that what is proper is what one can get away with or what is personally pleasing. Level 1 has two stages.

Stage 1: Punishment and compliance-oriented

Consequences determine behaviour . The person will follow to escape punishment.

Stage 2: Instrumental purpose orientation

Consequences once again shape behaviour. The individual prioritizes getting rewards or meeting personal demands.

Level 2: Conventional level

Individuals continue to value compliance with social conventions at the conventional level. However, the emphasis swings away from self-interest and toward interpersonal connections and social structures. Individuals seek to support rules established by others, such as parents, classmates, and the government, to gain their favour or preserve social order.

Stage 3: Good Boy/Nice Girl Orientation

Social approbation drives behaviour. The individual wishes to keep or gain the affection and acceptance of others by being a “good person.”

Stage 4: Law & Order Morality

Moral reasoning considers societal laws. Heinz should not steal the drug because he must uphold the law and maintain societal order.

Level 3: Postconventional or Principled level

At the post-conventional level, the person transcends the confines of his or her own culture. Morality is described as abstract rules and ideals that apply in all situations and cultures. The individual seeks to consider the perspectives of all persons.

Stage 5: Social Contract Orientation

Individual rights govern conduct. The person sees laws and norms as adaptable instruments for advancing human goals . That is, in the correct circumstances, there are exceptions to rules. Laws that are inconsistent with individual rights and the interests of the majority do not benefit individuals and should be reconsidered.

Stage 6: Universal ethical principles orientation

According to Kohlberg, this is the highest level of functioning. However, he stated that some people will never achieve this level. At this point, the acceptable action is determined by one’s ethical principles of conscience. These principles are abstract and have a universal application. This style of thinking entails considering the perspectives of every individual or group who may be affected by the choice.

Read More: What is Contingency Theory?

Problems with Kohlberg’s methods

• Artificial issues lack ecological validity and are often unfamiliar to the general population (Rosen, 1980). For example, it is perfectly OK in the Heinz dilemma to question people if Heinz should steal the medication to save his wife. However, Kohlberg’s participants ranged in age from ten to sixteen. They have never been married and have never been in a position substantially similar to the one described in the narrative. How do they determine if Heinz should steal the drug?
• The sample is skewed. According to Kohlberg’s (1969) hypothesis, males are more likely to proceed beyond stage four in moral development, meaning that females lack moral reasoning skills. Carol Gilligan and his research assistant, challenged this, arguing that women’s moral thinking differed rather than being defective.

Read More: Erik Erikson’s Theory of Psychosocial Development

Kohlberg is attacked for a variety of reasons, including a significant disparity between what we ought to do and what we do. Some detractors described it as a formulation of Western morality and justice. In the section below, essay typer has explored the primary critiques of Kohlberg’s moral growth theory to date.

Like Piaget’s approach, Kohlberg sought to build moral theories based on his own ideas, which appear to be psychological realities. Certain moral and political cultures may not accept these ideals. They claim that it overemphasizes moral and justice principles. Compassion , empathy, and interpersonal sentiments play an important part in formulating ideas that are not covered (Gibbs 2019).

Read More: Empathy vs Sympathy: Understanding the Difference

Most of Kohlberg’s notions are only applicable to those under the age of 16, who have no experience with marriage. For example, the Heinz issue articulated to him may involve concepts that could only be specified at that time, and if used in a daily context, the results may change (Baldwin, 2018). Kohlberg’s theory was gender-biased, with women thought to be lacking in moral thinking.

Read More: Understanding Gender and Sexuality in Psychology

His thesis was focused on upper-classmen and boys. He promptly stated that girls and women should focus on creating interpersonal relationships . Kohlberg stressed justice rather than ideals, presenting arguments from people who appreciate the moral elements of others. Several detractors suggested that Kohlberg’s phases are culturally biased and more Western-centric, with less concern for individual needs.

Lawrence Kohlberg, who relied on Piaget’s work to explain moral development in children, derives cognitive growth through series and phases. He teaches morals and values to students aged 10 to 16 using the moral dilemma, which presents contradictory viewpoints. After evaluating the situation, he organized the people’s replies into phases and levels.

Read More: The Psychology Behind Growth and Development

The first level specifies a person’s moral characteristics, which are distinguished by particular and individual perspectives. It comprises two stages for analyzing personal issues. At the conventional level, individuals get a fundamental comprehension of conventional morality and norms, with stages 3 and 4 defining norm shifts. At the post-conventional layer, individual judgment is defined in terms of values and principles. Whereas stages 5 and 6 saw the law as social contracts rather than strict rules.

Some objections are also related to the idea; such as the fact that many detractors believe it is gender-biased, while others believe it is centred on legislation rather than values. Despite these objections, Kohlberg’s theory is still a valuable framework for studying moral development, with consequences for education and parenting. By understanding the phases of moral growth, instructors and parents may assist steer youngsters towards more sophisticated levels of moral thinking.

Read More: Permissive Parenting: Its Approach and Impact on Child Development  

• Support. (2021, March 11). Kohlberg’s Moral Development Theory | Assignment help. Write My Essay for Me. https://sourceessay.com/kohlbergs-moral-development-theory-assignment-help/
• Simply Psychology. (2024, January 17). Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development. https://www.simplypsychology.org/kohlberg.html
• The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. (1998, July 20). Child psychology | Parenting, Development & Education. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/science/child-psychology

Share This Post:

Leave feedback about this cancel reply.

• Rating 5 4 3 2 1

Related Post

Preparing For Fatherhood: 12 Tips to be a

Top 12 Psychology Books That Are A Must-Read

Master the Art of Research: Topics and Tips

Mother’s Day: Why is Mother’s Love Unconditional?

Moral Teaching: Why Kant's Ideas On Education Are More Valid Than Ever

BOGOTÁ — Immanuel Kant, one of the most influential of Western philosophers, was born 300 years ago on April 22. He was a leading proponent of the ideas of the 18th century enlightenment, proposing the "categorical imperative" of ethical conduct based on objectivity and reason, not religious injunctions.

His ideas on teaching are to be found in three of his books: On Pedagogy, including his lecture notes from the University of Königsberg and published weeks before his death in 1804, the last chapter of Anthropology From a Pragmatic Point of View (1798) and What is Enlightenment? (1784). Kant was (together with Hegel) one of the few philosophers who taught for a living.

Kant would not like us today

He was reputedly so punctual that neighbors adjusted their watches on seeing him leave home for a walk at 3:30 p.m. Yet he was so moved reading Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Émile or On Education that he interrupted the afternoon walk for several days. The neighbors can only have imagined he was ill.

Judging by the titles he chose for his books, it is unlikely his virtues included modesty: Critique of Pure Reason (1781), Metaphysics of Morals (1797) and Critique of Practical Reason (1788). Kant's central thesis is that education's role is to help youngsters attain maturity, which means an ability to think freely and judge morally. He thus tackles the most important question in teaching: why teach what we are teaching?

Today, he would be a critic of socio-cultural polarization as it conveys little reflection and far too much zeal. He would also reject indoctrination wherein a teacher makes students think as he or she does, violating the learner's freedom. He would assuredly deride the language used today in politics, public life and online as in most cases this violates the categorical ethical imperative that entails respecting others, whatever their views or rationale.

A good philosopher will not "teach'" philosophy but the art of thinking.

Thinking independently requires courage, good teachers and systematic effort, which is why most individuals will happily repeat what their teachers, parents or political leaders say or the books they like to read. This creates a comfort zone that avoids the effort and risk of making judgments or stating ideas. It also means somebody else thinking and deciding on your behalf.

To think then is to exercise freedom and win autonomy, and a good philosopher will not "teach'" philosophy but the art of thinking. The ultimate goal of education, for Kant, was to aid pupils win their freedom and their moral and cognitive autonomy, both individually and collectively. This emphasis on the ethical and collective distances him from the "proto-romantic" Rousseau, who inclined toward spontaneity and individualism .

In contrast with animals who quickly learn what they will do in life and guide themselves with instincts, Kant says "man is the only creature that must be educated" into a being "able to perfect himself," and who has a "pragmatic predisposition toward becoming civilized through culture."

Stanislas Dehaene, a French scientist , picks up on this by describing us as members of Homo docens , the self-teaching species. This means that governments are obliged to assure everybody a good education, which isn't the case. In Kant's terms, people are only what education makes of them, which makes our two most complex and vital tasks in life "the art of governing and the art of educating."

How to become an adult

How then could we become adults through education? Kant sees three conditions for this: discipline, care and upbringing.

Discipline should be instilled at the youngest age as it becomes impossible to impose later on, and there Kant differs substantially from Rousseau. As if he had foreseen the norm of permissive families in our age, he wrote that if the child is "left to his own free will in youth and given no resistance, he will surely remain a little wild throughout his life."

We can see this with the modern youngsters today used to having their way, as their parents saw fit to pander to their whims and egocentrism. As they were never taught about it, they know nothing of either empathy or collaboration .

Kant analyses the tension between coercion and freedom. In his terms, "I must accustom my pupil to accept his freedom to be restrained, while guiding him so he can make good use of his freedom." Coercion has no sense here if freedom is not the objective, yet that goal will not be attained without obedience in a young child.

Kant remains a great teacher for us today, and his ideas, as valid as ever.

Plato said it before: There are two pernicious excesses to be avoided when educating youth: excessive severity and excessive indulgence . The balance between is difficult to attain but is essential to a good education. Children will become fearful and submissive if parents and teachers are oppressive, and indolent and capricious if perpetually cushioned with permissiveness.

Care is the second condition, akin to the constant attention given to an infant to assure its survival. Without the right care, children and adolescents may resort to force in their relations, though too much attention may be stifling.

As for the third condition, upbringing, Kant sees it as a guarantee of civilized living. It is the positive part of education that humanizes and turns a child into a fully-fledged human being, and that, as he stated in 1798, means "moral self-determination." The individual requires culture and moral criteria to live with others, which means teaching children with foresight into a "possible and better future state" in terms of human perfectibility.

The current state of affairs

Kant was well aware none of this was to be found in the schools of his time, whence his proposal of experimental schools to test his ideas before using them in public education. Today, we would call them teaching innovations. The teacher Inés Aguerrondo used to favor experimentation as pushing the "limits of what is possible" by interrupting the educational routine .

There are many, many people over the age of 18 in Colombia and Latin America, who have yet to become adults or mature in the Kantian sense, as they are incapable of judging independently. And Kant would surely think the same of Americans in the United States, if he were here today and informed of the candidate Donald Trump's reelection chances . What would he think of education in Argentina, where people recently voted for the angry, vociferous Javier Milei ?

Kant remains a great teacher for us today, and his ideas, as valid as ever . Our authorities should work to ensure children will grow to become the best adults they can be, in moral and intellectual terms, and fill the gaping gaps between this ideal and reality.

Our teachers are far from perfect when it comes to training and rigor, while youngsters tend to reject the risks of thinking freely. In Colombia, the state has given negligeable support to experimental schools. With this state of affairs, we can be sure people will remain immature, and their democracies, wild and primitive .

Like our content? Follow us for more. This article first appeared on Worldcrunch.com It was translated and adapted by Worldcrunch in partnership with EL ESPECTADOR . For the latest news & views from every corner of the world, Worldcrunch Today is the only truly international newsletter. Sign up here .