Kohlberg's stages of moral development
Imagine, if you will, a man named Heinz. He has a wife who is on her deathbed. He has been told by the doctor that his wife's life can only be saved if he gets a special medicine. This special medicine is the produced by a local druggist. It's not a cheap drug to make, costing about $200 a dose. The druggist sells doses for $2000 for a very good profit. Heinz begs and borrows money from everyone he can think of, managing to secure $1000. He then goes to the druggist and begs for the druggist to lower the price, or extend him some credit he could pay back. But the druggist refuses - it was their right as the creator of the medicine to profit from it. Our intrepid husband, not to be deterred, breaks into the druggist's office to steal a dose for his wife.
This ethical scenario is called the Heinz dilemma. In philosophy circles, you can change up the variables in the scenario similar to the trolley problem. But in psychology, it is used to demonstrate Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development.
Stages of Moral Development
Lawrence Kohlberg argued that moral reasoning could be quantified into six distinct stages, which are then condensed into three stages. For mental health professionals, knowing how the client reached their decision is more important than what their decision actually is as this can help guide how the counselor proceeds with the relationship.
Level One: Preconventional
An individual reasoning at this level is simply concerned about their own self, and how external consequences of their actions may harm them.
At stage one, a person is primarily driven by a fear of punishment. So, for example, a person at this level may reason that Heinz should not steal the medicine because theft is a crime, and a crime can result in punishment.
At stage two, a person is driven by reward or prid quo pro. A person at this level may decide that Heinz should steal because he will earn more loyalty from his wife, or that Heinz may not steal because it would make his life harder.
Ultimately, the individual considers themselves, rather than anyone else, even if their decisions may help or hinder others. This level is primarily associated with children.
Level Two: Conventional
At this level, a person is considering how decisions are viewed among society. Rather than purely looking at a dilemma through their own lens, they consider expectations of society.
Stage three sees an individual begin to consider how their actions may be perceived by their peers. So, they may reason that Heinz should steal the medicine because of familial loyalty. It's his wife, and a married couple are supposed to be good to each other. If you love someone, you take care of them. Teenagers, who are beginning to consider moral relativism, are often at this stage. It's sometimes called 'good boy/good girl'.
Stage four is about maintaining a social order. Reasoning at this level is no longer driven by just local loyalties, but with consideration of the whole system of law. At this stage, a person may reason that while Heinz has a very valid point with his theft, theft is still a detriment to society. There needs to be law and order to protect the social fabric. Alternatively, they may reason he should steal the medicine, and surrender himself for arrest. The end goal here is ensuring that society is run according to its laws, and that respect for these laws is the foundation of civilized society.
Kohlberg suggested the majority of people do not grow past this stage.
Level Three: Postconventional
At this level, people begin to consider not just what the law says, but if the law is just. Kohlberg thought only 10-15% of people ever reached this level. The important distinction between Conventional and Postconventional is that at the conventional level a person is still capitulating to outside authority. Postconventional has an individual looking inward for direction.
At stage five, the rules are not ironclad - they're part of a social contract. The rules should generally be respected, but if they are not serving people, then they should be removed. A person reasoning at this level might suggest Heinz should steal the medicine because not stealing it would directly lead to the death of his wife.
The final stage, stage six, gets into the idea of universal ethical principles. An individual should do things because they are right and just. People operating at this stage believe that justice is the ultimate endeavor of law. The common example I see of this stage is Martin Luther King, or individuals who engage in civil disobedience to protest against injustice in society. They may suggest Heinz should steal the medicine because it is more unjust to allow an individual to die than it is to ensure the druggist earns a profit.
Problems
There are critics to Kohlberg's stages, however.
It's heavily rooted in western philosophy. Thus, its applicability to cultures outside of this bubble may be limited. The whole concept of justice as the highest ideal is directly from Immanuel Kant. Another very valid criticism is that the stages are based on men's responses, introducing some gender bias in the scoring. Some also argue that a person may not act with concerns of justice in all situations, especially in lower stakes scenarios. And, of course, there's always the caveat that an individual's development is rarely a straight, consistent forward line.
There's also the debate on if there even is a stage six. Even Kohlberg considered that stage five might be the summit.
That being said, it can still have value when used to consider the decision making process and values of a client.
Conclusion
As I'm preparing for my test (hopefully this winter!), I have been making myself little study guides off of concepts I got wrong on practice tests, or just concepts I wanted to dig a little deeper on. Thus, I made this.
I don't know if I'll do any more of these, but it could be a fun and productive use of my time.
Thanks for reading, if you made it this far~