10.28
Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development
View the full transcript and gain access to JoVE Core videos
Q1: What is the Heinz dilemma and why did Kohlberg use it?
The Heinz dilemma is a thought experiment where a man must decide whether to steal an unaffordable drug to save his dying wife. Kohlberg used this dilemma to study how individuals reason about moral issues across different life stages. By analyzing responses to this ethical scenario, he identified patterns in moral reasoning that revealed how people's understanding of right and wrong evolves from childhood through adulthood.
Q2: How does moral reasoning differ at the pre-conventional level?
At the pre-conventional level, children base moral decisions primarily on consequences like rewards or punishments. A child might argue that Heinz should not steal the drug to avoid getting in trouble or making others angry. This stage reflects early childhood reasoning where actions are judged based on personal outcomes rather than broader ethical principles or social expectations.
Q3: What characterizes moral reasoning at the conventional level?
At the conventional level, adolescents align their moral reasoning with societal norms and roles. An adolescent might believe Heinz should steal because a good husband protects his wife, or conversely, that he should not because stealing breaks the law. This stage emphasizes conformity to social expectations and the importance of maintaining social order and relationships.
Q4: How does post-conventional moral reasoning transcend laws and conventions?
At the post-conventional level, individuals develop moral reasoning guided by personal ethical principles that transcend laws or societal conventions. Someone at this stage might argue that saving a life is more important than obeying a law against theft. This advanced reasoning reflects adult development where universal values like justice and equality guide moral decisions, even when they conflict with established rules.
Q5: What is the difference between Stage 1 and Stage 2 of pre-conventional morality?
Stage 1, Obedience and Punishment, judges actions based on avoiding negative outcomes. A child might say Heinz should not steal because he could go to jail. Stage 2, Individual Interest, shifts focus to personal benefits. A child at this stage might argue Heinz should steal because saving his wife benefits him personally.
Q6: How do Stage 3 and Stage 4 of conventional morality differ in their focus?
Stage 3, Interpersonal Relationships, emphasizes social roles and approval. Someone might argue Heinz should steal to fulfill the role of a caring husband. Stage 4, Law and Order, prioritizes rules and societal stability. From this perspective, Heinz should not steal because breaking the law disrupts the social order that benefits everyone.
Q7: What distinguishes Stage 5 and Stage 6 of post-conventional morality?
Stage 5, Social Contract, balances individual rights with societal good. Someone might argue saving a life takes precedence over property rights, justifying theft. Stage 6, Universal Ethical Principles, is guided by fundamental values like justice and equality. From this view, Heinz should not steal because it violates fairness, even if it causes personal loss.