Kohlberg’s Theory of

Cognitive Moral Development

 Three Levels of Cognitive Moral
Development
• Level 1- PRECONVENTIONAL MORALITY
• Egocentric point of view. Person speaks as isolated individual, not
as a member of society. Decisions based on fear of punishment
and desire for rewards.

• Level II – CONVENTIONAL MORALITY

• Person seeks to conform to personal and group expectations, seeks
to maintain, support and justify social order, and identifies with
persons and groups involved in it.

• Level III – POST-CONVENTIONAL MORALITY

• Person defines moral values and principles apart from the authority
of the group and apart from the person’s own identification with the
group. Emphasis shifts from maintaining society for its own sake to
the principles and values that make a good society.
 Six Stages of Cognitive Moral
Development
• Level 1- PRECONVENTIONAL MORALITY

• Stage 1 – Obedience and Punishment Orientation

• Rules seen as fixed and absolute. Doing the right thing is obeying
rules to avoid punishment. Punishment is tied to perception of
wrongness. Morality is seen as something external to oneself.

• Stage 2 – Instrumental Relativist and Exchange Orientation

• Person recognizes that there are different viewpoints. Everything is
seen as relative. Therefore, a person should be free to pursue his or
her interests. Actions are judged based on how they serve one’s
own needs. Punishment is viewed as a risk that one naturally wants
to avoid.
• Right action includes fair exchange or fair deals. Reciprocity is
possible but only if it serves one’s own interests: “You scratch my
back and I’ll scratch yours.” The notion is that of returning favors.
 Six Stages of Cognitive Moral
Development
• Level II – CONVENTIONAL MORALITY

• Stage 3 – Interpersonal Concordance, good boy-nice girl Orientation

• Moral behavior is viewed as what pleases or helps others or is approved by
them. People should live up to the expectations of the group (family,
community). Good behavior means having good motives and behaving in
good ways – being nice and caring about others, acting from empathy, trust
or personal loyalty. Behavior is judged by intent and interpersonal
relationships. Emphasis is on social norms and conformity, on being a good
person as defined by the group.

• Stage 4 – Maintaining the Social Order, Law and Order Orientation

• Moral action viewed as obeying laws, respecting authority, and performing
one’s duties so as to maintain the social order. The individual becomes
more broadly concerned with society as a whole.
 Six Stages of Cognitive Moral
Development
• Level III – POST-CONVENTIONAL MORALITY

• Stage 5 – Social Contract and Individual Rights Orientation

• Person takes a “prior-to-society” perspective and considers abstract rights and values
that a society should uphold. Recognition that different groups in society have
different values, opinions and beliefs, and emphasis on democratic procedural rules
for reaching consensus and changing laws based on rational considerations of social
utility.
• Person does not generally favor breaking laws, but believes laws should be changed
by democratic means when they are unfair or to improve society.
• An underlying belief in social contract theory and basic rights.

• Stage 6 – Universal Ethical Principles Orientation

• Moral decisions based on abstract reasoning and principles of justice, which require
impartiality and respect for the basic dignity of all people as individuals and respect
for human rights.
• Recognition that democratic processes do not always produce just results; a majority
may vote to infringe the rights of a minority. People should follow internalized
principles of justice, even if they conflict with laws and rules.
 Stage Theory
• Development neither biological nor taught
• Qualitative differences
– One right view imposed by authority figure
– Multiple perspectives viewed relative to own interests
– Concern about others’ feelings
– Concern about the social order and rule of law
– Emphasis on democratic processes and rights
– All parties take one another’s perspectives according
to abstract principles of justice
 Stage Theory (cont’d)
• Structured wholes
• Invariant sequence
– Regression extremely rare
• Hierarchical integration
• Increasing consistency
• Universal
 Heinz Dilemma
• In Europe, a woman was near death from a special kind of cancer.
There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was
a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently
discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was
charging ten times what the drug cost him to make. He paid $200
for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug.
The sick woman’s husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to
borrow the money, but he could only get together about $1,000
which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was
dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the
druggist said: “No, I discovered the drug and I’m going to make
money on it.” So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man’s
store to steal the drug for his wife. Should the husband have done
that?
 Stage 1
Heinz should not have stolen the drug:
• “It’s against the law.” “It’s bad to steal.”
• Explanation: He’ll be punished.

Heinz should have stolen the drug:

• “Heinz can steal it because he asked first
and it’s not like he stole something big; he
won’t get punished.”
 Stage 2
• “Heinz might think it’s right to take the drug, the druggist would not.”
• “Heinz might steal the drug if he wanted his wife to live, but he
doesn’t have to if he wants to marry someone younger and better
looking.”
• “Heinz might steal it because maybe they had children and he might
need someone at home to look after them. But maybe he shouldn’t
steal it because they might put him in prison for more years than he
could stand.”
• Heinz should steal the drugs because he’ll be happier that saved his
wife even if he has to go to jail.

• The druggist was “trying to rip Heinz off.”

• Heinz should steal for his wife “because she might return the favor
some day.”
 Stage 3
• Heinz was right to steal the drug because “he was a good man for
wanting to save her.”
• “His intentions were good, that of saving the life of someone he
loves.”
• Even if Heinz doesn’t love his wife, he should steal the drug
because “I don’t think any husband should sit back and watch his
wife die.”
• The druggist was “selfish,” “greedy,” and “only interested in himself,
not another life.” Some respondents so angry at druggist that “he
ought to be put in jail.”
• “It was really the druggist’s fault, he was unfair, trying to overcharge
and letting someone die. Heinz loved his wife and wanted to save
her. I think anyone would. I don’t think they would put him in jail.
The judge would look at all sides, and see that the druggist was
charging too much.”
• Heinz tried to do everything he could. You can’t blame him.
 Stage 4
• I understand Heinz’s motives were good, but I can’t
condone the theft. What if we all started breaking the
laws whenever we felt we had a good reason?
• “I don’t want to sound like [ultra-conservative], law and
order and wave the flag, but if everybody did as he
wanted to do, set up his own beliefs as to right and
wrong, then I think you would have chaos. The only
thing I think we have in civilization nowadays is some
sort of legal structure which people are sort of bound to
follow. [Society needs] a centralizing framework.”
 Stage 5
• “It’s the husband’s duty to save his wife. The fact that
her life is in danger transcends every other standard you
might use to judge his action. Life is more important
than property.” This applies even to a stranger, since to
be consistent, the value of a life means any life.
• Should the judge punish Heinz? “Usually the moral and
legal standpoints coincide. Here they conflict. The judge
should weight the moral standpoint more heavily but
preserve the legal law in punishing Heinz lightly.”
• The scientist has the right to fair compensation for his
work. Even if the wife is sick, that does not make
stealing right.
 Criticism
• Empirical challenges
• Overemphasis on moral reasoning. Moral
reasoning may not lead to moral behavior.
• Based on Western culture and philosophy.
Does not account for collectivistic cultures.
• Post-Conventional Orientation is dangerous.
• Overemphasizes rights and rules and principle
of justice as bases for moral decisions.
Underemphasizes compassion, caring and
importance of interpersonal relationships.
– Gender-biased. Overlooks the ethics of compassion
and caring. (Carol Gilligan, In a Different Voice.
 Sources
• Carol Gilligan, In a Different Voice.

• James Rest, et al., Postconventional Moral Thinking/A Neo-Kohlbergian

Approach.

• W.C. Crain, Theories of Development, “Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral

Development.”

• Kendra Van Wagner, “Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development.”

• Dianne K. Daeg de Mott, “Kohlberg’s Theory pf Moral Reasoning.”

• Lawrence Kohlberg, “Stages of Moral Development.”

• “Deciding What’s Right: A Psychological Approach.”