Kohlberg\'s Theory of Moral Development

Kohlberg's Theory Of Moral Development

Domestic Violence

There is the growing belief that business activity, especially managerial work, involves ethical problems. With the growing belief that ethics is a very important part of business and corporate activity, "business ethics" had come to be a significant area of study in determining what is ethical in business -- and, of course, what is not. An ethical code of conduct in business is becoming more and more commonplace today. The point of these ethical codes are to reassure everyone involved in the business (in different areas -- from customers to employees, managers to suppliers) that the business and its people has a certain belief system in place. But how does one come about developing this ethical system? Where do these ethics come from? Kohlberg's theory of moral development helps us understand how people come to possess their morals, which affect the way that we behave on many different levels. Kohlberg's theory offers us an important orientation to not only the field of ethics, but it also offers us a framework in which to understand how ethics are developed beyond the simple "rule following" behavior.

Kohlberg's theory of moral development focused on the thought that human beings development both philosophically and psychologically in a progressive fashion -- that is, people progress in their moral reasoning (which translates into ethical behavior) through a series of stages. Kohlberg believed that there were six different stages, which can be classified into three distinct levels, in which people progressed. The first level, "pre-conventional," is made up of stage one and stage 2, "obedience and punishment," and "individualism, instrumentalism, and exchange," respectively. Level two, the "conventional" level, is made up of stage 3, "good boy/girl," and stage 4, "law and order." The third and final level, or the "post-conventional" level, encompasses stage 5, "social contract," and stage six, "principled conscience" (Barger 2000). Kohlberg's theory of moral development can be related to all sorts of ethics -- including administrative ethics -- as the stages are important for understanding how an individual comes to their moral reasoning, which then prompts them to act or behave in a certain way. Kohlberg believed that individuals must progress through the stages one at a time; in other words, there is no way to jump over a level. Though people may progress at different speeds through the levels, all people, if they are to reach the highest level of moral development, must go through each and every stage.

The first stage of Kohlberg's theory of moral development - the pre-conventional level -- is found in young, elementary school-aged children. In this stage, Kohlberg believed that individuals act depending on the socially acceptable norms (Barger 2000). They learn these norms through authoritative figures such as teachers and parents who tell them what is "right" and what is "wrong." Individuals learn to behave because of the threat of punishment if they do not behave obediently. The second stage of level one is all about gaining the perspective that it is in one's own best interests to act in an obedient way (2000).

The second level -- the conventional level -- of Kohlberg's theory is the level of moral reasoning that is generally found in society (Barger 2000) -- that is, Kohlberg believed that most people do not progress past this level. Most people stay in this stage -- a stage that has to do with wanting to get the approval of others and wanting to abide by the law and respond to one's obligations or duties (2000). "…most people are at the conventional level because the post-conventional level requires an uncommon commitment and contemplation" (Bowman, West & Beck 2010).

Most professionals strive to make decisions at the highest level of moral development. Bowman et al. (2010) claims that second-level thinking, the level where most people stop progressing, can be inadequate because there are some social rules that are not just (for example, law enforcement authorities in the Jim Crow South and doctors in Nazi Germany (2010)). Bowman et al. (2010) states that "third-level reasoning…prevents abuse of professional skills for one's own advantage or for that of one's social group" (2010).

Kohlberg believed that the U.S. government, the official morality, requires fifth stage moral reasoning (Lewis & Gilman 2005). This level asks for respect of individual rights and it accepts critically examined values (2005). While this stage is not the highest stage (the highest being a stage where life is considered "sacred"), it is above the norm. This should also be the level that administrative officials, as well as other individuals in positions of power, strive to attain. To be an administrative authority necessitates the belief that all individuals inherently have freedoms and values that cannot be manipulated in any way. Lewis and Gilman (2005) stress that when one is looking at the principles of Kohlberg's different levels and stages, it isn't about "the invoking of 'high principles' that credits a subject with high-stage thinking, but rather the way that a subject sets up the problem and deals with the claims of all participants in a dilemma" (Rest 1980; 2005).

Kohlberg's theory of moral development is a sound theory, however, we cannot deny that people, because of their different positions in stages, have different ways of viewing moral problems and thus respond in a different manner (Lewis & Gilman 2005). Kohlberg also believed that people could respond in ways that mix the different stages together (2005) -- that is, a person could use moral reasoning of right and wrong learned when they were a child and mix it with moral reasoning concerning law and order.

In the article entitled, "Are women more ethical? Recent findings on the effects of gender upon moral development," White (1999) investigated whether gender played a role in moral development. Are women generally more ethical than men? The study investigated 299 male and female members of the U.S. Coast Guard, focusing on public ethics. If gender was found to play a role in ethical behavior, then White (1999) believed that "a profound impact on administrative behavior can be hypothesized." Carol Gilligan believed that women do, in fact, have a different conception of morality -- a moral of responsibility, while men have a morality of rights (1999). "Very early in life, men's individualism and separation from the feminine gives them an ethics of justice, while women's affiliation with mothers and others teaches them an ethics of care" (1999).

In the U.S. Coast Guard study, women scored higher than their male counterparts. There could be many reasons for the difference in moral development and behavior of men and women. One example White (1999) offers is the notion that perhaps women join the Coast Guard for more altruistic reasons than their male counterparts, indicating a higher level of moral development in the women. Or, the men could be the "problem," scoring lower because of their joining the Coast Guard for less altruistic reasons (1999).