Kohlberg's Moral Stages Applied to a Drug Dilemma Abroad

Personal Response to the Moral Dilemma

If confronted with this dilemma, I would tell the truth about my son and not allow my wife to take the blame. However, I would not do so out of higher moral principles; rather, I would assume that law enforcement would likely determine the truth eventually, at which point both my son and my wife might suffer severe consequences instead of only my son. It is also worth noting that the son might not be willing to allow his mother to take the blame, further complicating the situation when dealing with authorities.

Although it may be difficult to obtain legal assistance, the best available course of action is to admit nothing and request legal aid from the U.S. embassy — though there may be some reluctance to assist given that this is technically a drug crime. Hopefully, the minimal nature of the offense will garner some sympathy from the U.S. government, though it is unlikely to do so from the foreign authorities. Regardless, the ethical focus should be on protecting the son while doing so in a way that does not result in harm to an innocent spouse as well. Understanding how these competing obligations relate to Kohlberg's stages of moral development provides a useful framework for analyzing the dilemma.

Kohlberg's Moral Development Stages and the Dilemma

This scenario engages virtually all levels of Kohlberg's moral development hierarchy. At the most basic first level, it could be argued that the son should suffer the consequences of his actions and be punished. At the second level, one could argue that the son transgressed his duty to keep the needs of others in mind — namely, his parents. At the third level of pleasing others, although the mother may wish to come forward and take responsibility for the crime, the son clearly acted without considering how his parents might react, or how the foreign country's officials would respond.

The fourth level of moral understanding — law and order — might suggest that, given the severity of the drug problem, a nation has the right to take a strong stance in opposition to drug offenses.

The fifth level argues for a more nuanced understanding of what constitutes legitimate law. Simply because something is illegal does not mean that an extremely harsh punishment is always justified. The Code of Hammurabi holds that an eye for an eye is moral, but society has moved beyond that principle and now recognizes that some leeway must be given with respect to the proportion of the offense and even the age of the perpetrator. At the highest, philosophical sixth level of abstraction, the idea of showing mercy appears relevant in a universal, cross-cultural context.

Moral Judgment Beyond a Country's Laws

In the case of some offenses — such as violations of free speech and other human rights — certain moral principles transcend the laws of a nation. Laws that discriminate on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, or ethnicity are immoral. The laws permitting slavery in the United States were immoral, as was the apartheid regime in South Africa. Although laws regulating drug use may be reasonable in principle, if the punishments are so excessive and severe — whether in the United States or abroad — this itself constitutes a moral evil.

For example, while most people would concede that speeding is wrong, reasonable people would also agree that revoking someone's license for driving five or ten miles per hour above the speed limit would be disproportionate, unless other reckless circumstances were involved, such as drunk driving. Similarly, for someone to lose his life or permanently lose his liberty because of a small amount of marijuana is wrong. The risk to society posed by simple possession is relatively negligible, and the potential contribution the individual could make to society remains significant. Possession of a minor amount of marijuana is not evidence that the individual poses a danger to others or has committed a major infraction warranting a loss of liberty or life. This perspective aligns with broader debates in international drug policy about the proportionality of criminal penalties.