Moral Development Theory of Kohlberg

Moral Development Theory of Kohlberg

6 stages of moral development by kohlberg

American psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg studied this topic and reached some interesting conclusions. He presented cases like this one to children of different ages to see how they perceive morality and found that there are three stages in human moral development.

The first stage is the 'pre-conventional' stage, which occurs from ages 3 to 7 and includes two parts: self-interest and avoiding punishment.
In the first stage, a child doesn’t distinguish between right and wrong. Something is ‘good’ if it results in a reward, and ‘bad’ if it results in punishment. In the second stage, a child will do something ‘good’ if they get something in return. A good act is one with positive outcomes, while a bad act has negative outcomes. For example, Kohlberg asked children the following question: Danny wanted to steal some chocolate, so he searched around and accidentally broke one glass. Chen helped his mom set the table and accidentally broke three glasses. Who did something worse? Children at this stage would answer ‘Chen’ because he broke more glasses—they focus only on the outcome, not the intention.

Additionally, until about age seven, children are unable to see things from another person’s perspective, even in a moral sense. They can feel empathy or feel sorry for someone, but they can't truly put themselves in that person’s place. Some adults remain stuck at this stage of development—for example, an adult who drives responsibly only when there’s a police officer or camera around, or adults who won’t do a favor for someone unless they get something in return. We all know the type of adult who’s stuck at this stage.



The second stage is the conventional stage, which spans from ages 8 to 13. This stage is also made up of two parts, and most adults do not develop beyond this stage.
What matters to the child at this stage is what society thinks of them; social norms dictate what is right and what is wrong. Adults who are stuck at this stage might say things like, ‘It’s not right to do something because it’s not acceptable.’ At this stage, the child becomes aware of others’ perspectives, understands what is expected of them, and tries to conform to those expectations. It’s important for them to be seen as a ‘good kid.’ In addition to the differences from the previous stage, children at this point are also aware of the importance of others’ intentions and do not judge solely based on outcomes.
In the second part of the conventional stage, we become less concerned about what others think of us or trying to please them. Instead, we focus on the social order to which we belong. I’m not asking, ‘Will I be seen as a good kid by others?’ but rather, ‘What do the law or social norms say about being a good kid?’ At this stage, good citizenship is viewed as obeying the law, and citizens who break the law in the name of a different sense of justice or due to rights they feel they are denied are seen as a threat to society. As mentioned, most adults are stuck in this stage of moral development and in distinguishing between right and wrong.


The third and final stage is the post-conventional stage, which only about 3 to 6 percent of the adult population reaches.
This stage is also composed of two parts. In the first part, individuals develop their own independent understanding of right and wrong, and they can compare it with social norms and the views of others.

Additionally, at this stage, we understand the relationship between the citizen and the state as a kind of social contract. The individual gives up the power they have to manage affairs with other citizens on their own and entrusts that power to the state. In return, the state provides security and basic rights.

Individuals can recognize situations where the state fails to fulfill its part of the social contract; they understand that some laws do not align with the common good and that certain segments of the population are marginalized and do not receive full rights. As mentioned, they have their own opinions and a moral framework developed over the years.

For example, regarding the Heinz dilemma, someone at this stage would argue that he should steal the drug because human life is more important than the law and that the state should perhaps regulate the issue, subsidize the medication, or prevent the pharmacist from setting prices as he wishes. The individual sees the complexity of the situation and does not view it in black and white—unlike children in earlier stages who would simply say that stealing is wrong, and that’s the end of it.

Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development

heinz dilemma