The study of morality is something that is constantly generating dilemmas, doubts and theories.
Virtually everyone has wondered at some point about what is right and what is not, about the best way to order priorities to become a good person, or even about the very meaning of the word “moral.” However, many fewer have proposed to study not only what good, evil, ethics and morality are, but also the way in which we think about these ideas.
If the first is the task of philosophers, the second enters squarely into the field of psychology, in which highlights Lawrence Kohlberg’s theory of moral development
The creator of this theory of moral development, Lawrence Kohlberg, was an American psychologist born in 1927 who in the second half of the 20th century from Harvard University, was largely dedicated to investigating the way in which people reason about moral problems.
That is, instead of worrying about studying the appropriateness or inappropriateness of actions, as philosophers like Socrates did, he studied the norms and rules that could be observed in human thought regarding morality.
The similarities between Kohlberg’s theory and Piaget’s
His research resulted in Kohlberg’s theory of moral development, greatly influenced by Jean Piaget’s theory of the 4 phases of cognitive development. Like Piaget, Lawrence Kohlberg believed that in the evolution of typical modes of moral reasoning there are stages that are qualitatively different from each other, and that curiosity to learn is one of the main drivers of mental development throughout the different phases of life.
Furthermore, in both Kohlberg’s and Piaget’s theories there is a basic idea: The development of the way of thinking is about mental processes that are very focused on the concrete and the directly observable to the abstract and more general.
In Piaget’s case, this meant that in our early childhood we tend to think only about what we can directly perceive in real time, and that little by little we learn to reason about abstract elements that we cannot experience in first person.
In the case of Lawrence Kohlberg, it means that the group of people to whom we can wish well becomes increasingly larger to the point of including those whom we have not seen or know. The ethical circle is becoming increasingly extensive and inclusive, although what matters is not so much its gradual expansion, but rather the qualitative changes that occur in the moral development of a person as they evolve. In fact, Kohlberg’s theory of moral development is based on 6 levels
The three levels of moral development
The categories that Kohlberg used to indicate the level of moral development are a way of expressing the substantial differences that occur in someone’s way of reasoning as they grow and learn.
These 6 stages fall into three broader categories: the pre-conventional, conventional and post-conventional phase
1. pre-conventional phase
In the first phase of moral development, which according to Kohlberg usually lasts until the age of 9, the person judges events according to the way in which they affect them
1.1. First stage: orientation towards obedience and punishment
In the first stage, the individual only thinks about the immediate consequences of his actions, avoiding unpleasant experiences linked to punishment and seeking the satisfaction of his own needs.
For example, In this phase, innocent victims of an event tend to be considered guilty, for having suffered a “punishment”, while those who harm others without being punished do not do wrong. It is an extremely egocentric style of reasoning in which good and evil has to do with what each individual experiences separately.
In the second stage, we begin to think beyond the individual, but egocentrism is still present If in the previous phase it is not possible to conceive that a moral dilemma exists in itself because there is only one point of view, in this phase the existence of clashes of interests begins to be recognized.
Faced with this problem, people who find themselves in this phase opt for relativism and individualism, as they do not identify with collective values: each one defends their own thing and acts accordingly. It is believed that, if agreements are established, they must be respected so as not to create a context of insecurity that harms individuals.
2. Conventional phase
The conventional phase is usually the one that defines the thinking of adolescents and many adults. In her, The existence of both a series of individual interests and a series of social conventions about what is good is taken into account and what is bad that helps create a collective ethical “umbrella.”
2.1. Third stage: orientation towards consensus
In the third stage, good actions are defined by how they impact the relationships one has with others. Therefore, people who are in the consensus-oriented stage try to be accepted by others and They strive to make their actions fit nicely into the set of collective rules that define what is good
Good and bad actions are defined by the motives behind them and how these decisions fit into a set of shared moral values. The focus is not on how good or bad certain proposals may sound, but on the objectives behind them.
2.2. Fourth stage: orientation to authority
At this stage of moral development, good and bad emanate from a series of norms that are perceived as something separate from individuals Good consists in complying with the rules, and evil is breaking them.
There is no possibility of acting beyond these rules, and the separation between good and bad is as defined as the rules are specific. If in the previous stage the interest is placed rather on those people who are known and who can show approval or rejection of what one does, here the ethical circle is broader and includes all those people subject to the law.
People who are in this phase have their own moral principles as a reference that, despite not having to coincide with established norms, are based on both collective values and individual freedoms, not exclusively on self-interest.
3.1. Stage 5: orientation towards the social contract
The way of moral reasoning typical of this stage arises from a reflection on whether laws and norms are correct or not, that is, whether they shape a good society.
We think about the way in which society can affect people’s quality of life and we also think about the way in which people can change rules and laws when they are dysfunctional.
That is to say, there is a very global vision of moral dilemmas, going beyond existing rules and adopting a distanced theoretical position. The fact of considering, for example, that slavery was legal but illegitimate and that despite that it existed as if it were something totally normal would fall within this stage of moral development.
3.2. Stage 6: orientation towards universal principles
The moral reasoning that characterizes this phase is very abstract, and is based on the creation of universal moral principles that are different from the laws themselves. For example, it is considered that when a law is unfair, changing it should be a priority. Furthermore, decisions do not emanate from assumptions about the context, but from categorical considerations based on universal moral principles.
