|
| |
LAWRENCE KOHLBERG
1927-1987
from http://www.psy.pdx.edu/PsiCafe/KeyTheorists/Kohlberg.htm
Lawrence Kohlberg spent many years researching how an individual develops their
own moral codes. First, Kohlberg was born into wealth on October 25, 1927 in
Bronxville, New York. Even though he was wealthy, he chose to become a sailor;
and after World War II, he helped to smuggle Jews through the British blockade
of Palestine.
In 1973 Kohlberg developed a tropical disease, and while hospitalized in 1987,
was reported missing on January 17. His body was later recovered from a marsh;
however, the exact date of his death remains unknown. Rumor is that he committed
suicide.
For his doctoral research Kohlberg studied differences in children's reasoning
about moral dilemmas. He hypothesized that moral difficulties motivated their
development through a fixed sequence of increasingly flexible kinds of moral
reasoning. He also helped to clarify the general cognitive-developmental view of
age-related changes. Thereafter, Kohlberg became a leader in moral education.
Kohlberg was a psychologist who applied the developmental approach of Jean
Piaget, who he studied under, to the analysis of changes in moral reasoning.
Kohlberg was a professor and did most of his research at Harvard University.
Copied from.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development
Kohlberg's stages of moral development are planes of moral adequacy conceived by
Lawrence Kohlberg to explain the development of moral reasoning. Created while
studying psychology at the University of Chicago, the theory was inspired by the
work of Jean Piaget and a fascination with children's reactions to moral
dilemmas.[1] He wrote his doctoral dissertation at the university in 1958,[2]
outlining what are now known as his stages of moral development.
This theory holds that moral reasoning, which is the basis for ethical behavior,
has six identifiable developmental constructive stages - each is more adequate
at responding to moral dilemmas than the last.[3] In studying these Kohlberg
followed the development of moral judgment far beyond the ages originally
studied earlier by Piaget,[4] who also claimed that logic and morality develop
through constructive stages.[3] Expanding considerably upon this groundwork, it
was determined that the process of moral development was principally concerned
with justice and that its development continued throughout the lifespan,[2] even
spawning dialogue of philosophical implications of such research.[5][6]
from http://www.xenodochy.org/ex/lists/moraldev.html
Stages of Moral Development notes
by Lawrence Kohlberg (1971)
I. Preconventional Level
At this level, the child is responsive to cultural rules and labels of good and
bad, right or wrong, but he interprets the labels in terms of either the
physical or hedonistic consequences of action (punishment, reward, exchange of
favors) or the physical power of those who enunciate the rules and labels. The
level is divided into the following three stages:
Stage 0: Egocentric judgement. The child makes judgements of good on the basis
of what he likes and wants or what helps him, and bad on the basis of what he
does not like or what hurts him. He has no concept of rules or of obligations to
obey or conform independent of his wish.
Stage 1: The punishment and obedience orientation. The physical consequences of
action determine its goodness or badness regardless of the human meaning or
value of these consequences. Avoidance of punishment and unquestioning deference
to power are values in their own right, not in terms of respect for an
underlying moral order supported by punishment and authority (the latter is
stage 4).
Stage 2: The instrumental relativist orientation. Right action consists of what
instrumentally satisfies one's own needs and occasionally the needs of others.
Human relations are viewed in terms such as those of the market place. Elements
of fairness, reciprocity, and equal sharing are present, but they are always
interpreted in a physical, pragmatic way. Reciprocity is a matter of "you
scratch my back and I'll scratch your", not loyalty, gratitude, or justice.
II. Conventional Level
At this level, the individual perceives the maintenance of the expectations of
his family, group, or nation as valuable in its own right, regardless of
immediate and obvious consequences. The attitude is not only one of conformity
to personal expectations and social order, but of loyalty to it, of actively
maintaining, supporting, and justifying the order and identifying with the
persons or group involved in it. The level consists of the following two stages:
Stage 3: The interpersonal concordance or "good boy-nice girl" orientation. Good
behavior is what pleases or helps others and is approved by them. There is much
conformity to stereotypical images of what is majority or "natural" behavior.
Behavior is frequently judged by intention -- "he means well" becomes important
for the first time. One earns approval by being "nice".
Stage 4: The "law and order" orientation. The individual is oriented toward
authority, fixed rules, and the maintenance of the social order. Right behavior
consists in doing one's duty, showing respect for authority, and maintaining the
given social order for its own sake.
III. Post-Conventional, Autonomous, or Principled Level.
The individual makes a clear effort to define moral values and principles that
have validity and application apart from the authority of the groups of persons
holding them and apart from the individual's own identification with the group.
The level has the two following stages:
Stage 5: The social-contract legalistic orientation (generally with utilitarian
overtones). Right action tends to be defined in terms of general individual
rights and standards that have been critically examined and agreed upon by the
whole society. There is a clear awareness of the relativism of personal values
and opinions and a corresponding emphasis upon procedural rules for reaching
consensus. Aside from what is constitutionally and democratically agreed upon,
right action is a matter of personal values and opinions. The result is an
emphasis upon the "legal point of view", but with an additional emphasis upon
the possibility of changing the law in terms of rational considerations of
social utility (rather than freezing it in terms of stage 4 "law and order").
Outside the legal realm, free agreement, and contract, is the binding element of
obligation. The "official" morality of the American government and Constitution
is at this stage.
Stage 6: The universal ethical-principle orientation. Right is defined by the
decision of conscience in accord with self-chosen ethical principles that appeal
to logical comprehensiveness, universality, and consistency. These principles
are abstract and ethical (the Golden Rule, the categorical imperative); they are
not concrete moral rules like the Ten Commandments. At heart, these are
universal principles of justice, of the reciprocity and equality of the human
rights, and of respect for the dignity of human beings as individual persons.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes and Caution
This quotation is taken from the table in "the Proceedings of the Conference on
Psychology and the Process of Schooling in the Next Decade: Alternative
Conceptions", Editor Maynard C. Reynolds. Kohlberg's contribution was entitled
"The concepts of Developmental Psychology as the Central Guide to Education:
Examples from Cognitive, Moral, and Psychological Education." The document is
further marked "A publication of the Leadership Training Institute/Special
education, sponsored by the Bureau of Educational Personnel Development, U.S.
Office of Education". Unfortunately, the reprint copy I have is not dated. The
latest reference in it is 1971, but one sentence in the paper gives 1972 as the
date of the same reference, which I think it possibly an error. I attributed
1971 as the year for the levels in the form quoted here.
I obtained my copy of the reprint from "The Center for Moral Education" at
Harvard University many years ago. That organization is no longer listed as part
of Harvard's organization, and email inquiries have gone unanswered.
As I look at other reprints, I find a 1973 Journal of Philosophy article which
does not include the Stage 0. Another article in 1975 also does not have the
Stage 0 in it.
Kohlberg contrasts Stage 0 with other theories in a couple of other tables in
the article, so he may have made a "custom alteration" to the theory for the
purpose of this particular set of comparisons.
In table 3, Kohlberg's Stage 0 is ranked with Piaget's Symbolic, intuitive
thought.
In table 4, his Stage 0 is ranked with Peck & Havighurst (1960) amoral, C.
Sullivan, Grant & Sulivan (1961) presocial, Harvey Hunt & Schroeder (1961)
Sub-1, Sovinger (1966) presocial, and Vanden Daele (1968) excitation oriented.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the most influential critiques of the Kohlberg theory is to be found in
Carol Gilligan’s In a Different Voice (1982). Gilligan argues that Kohlberg’s
rule-oriented conception of morality has an orientation toward justice, which
she associates with stereotypically male thinking, whereas women and girls are
perhaps more likely to approach moral dilemmas with a "care" orientation. One
important issue in moral theory that the Kohlberg-Gilligan debate raises is that
of the role and importance of moral feelings in the moral life. The Philosophy
of Childhood, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Notes on In a Different Voice by Carol Gilligan by Allen Cypher
Chuck Huff's course introduction to In a Different Voice by Carol Gilligan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caution
by Charles Kramer
Level I: Pre-conventional methods: The use of the words "the child is
responsive" is so general that the reader may wonder whether the author has and
provides evidence that "every" child is responsive. Does he assume that all age
groups are concerned, that children of all cultures have been assessed and that
a significant number of children have been observed interpreting labels in terms
as indicated. If so, how many children, Boys and Girls, Caucasian or from all
ethnic groups and/or of different IQ, spoken or written language performance
levels, and where have indeed been observed so as to authorize the
generalizations stated about the abstract "pre-conventional" level and stages?
Stage 0, 1 and 2: Egocentric judgment, punishment and obedience orientation,
instrumental relativist orientation:
Is this verified for a given percentage of various samples of children (How,
when, where, by whom) or is this valid for a very large "parent population"
including representative samples of children, mixing origin, years of schooling,
personal status (orphan, one-parent family, only child and children with
brothers and sisters, in the US, Australia, Africa, Japan , China, etc.), health
condition, physical and/or mental skills development etc.? When was the data
collected, how, by whom, using which
|
