Lawrence Kohlberg (1927-1987) believed that morality develops gradually throughout childhood and adolescence in the following six stages. His theory was radical and challenged both the psychoanalytic theory (morality is imposed onto children) and the behaviorist theory (morality is about avoiding bad feelings).

Preconventional Stages (Childhood)

The Stage of Obedience and Punishment

“Throwing my food on the ground is bad because when I do it I am punished”

In the first of his “preconventional stages” Kohlberg argues that we learn what is right and wrong based on whether they lead to punishment. 

The Stage of Individualism and Exchange

“If you give me some of your sweets, I’ll give you some of mine”

In the second stage, a key factor of morality – the desires and needs of others – are important, but only in a reciprocal sense. Based on these two ideas, Kohlberg suggests that at the start of your life, morality is governed by consequence.

Conventional Stages (Adolescence)

The Good Boy – Nice Girl stage

“I’ll help you lift those boxes because my brother did it and everyone said he was a good boy”

In this stage, we start to consider the intention behind behaviour, rather than just the consequences (but not fully).

An important aspect of this stage is that you want your actions to be seen as good because it achieves social validation. What’s interesting from these first few stages is how much your environment and the people around you shape your sense of morality.

The Law and Order stage

“I’ll put my rubbish in the bin because that’s the law and if nobody did, that would be bad”

In this stage, we start to equate ‘goodness’ with respecting authority, obeying the law, and maintaining social order. I’m not so sure about this part of the theory. A common part of being an adolescent is rebellion, and I think that we end up conforming mainly because of the very first of Kohler’s stages – “if I behave badly I’ll be punished.” I imagine that there’s a whole spectrum, one end being the kids who love social order and conform pretty easily, and at the other end those that have to learn through punishment, with everyone slotting somewhere in between.

Postconventional Stages (Adulthood)

Kohler believed that only 10-15% of people reach this stage, and it’s where morality gets really messy.

The Social Contract and Individual Rights stage

“I should steal this life-saving drug because human life is worth more than property rights”

In this stage, while the respect for authority is not lost there is a growing belief that individual rights are more important than laws that are too restrictive or destructive. This is where morality becomes much more individual and tricky.

The Universal Ethical Principles stage

“I’ll protest this government decision because I believe it to be wrong”

Here, your own conscience determines your morality and you’re willing to go against society, risking disapproval or serious punishment, because you believe it to be immoral. Kohlberg thought very few got to this stage – think civil rights activists.

Issues

There are a couple of issues with Kohlberg’s theory, interesting though it is.

First, distinct stages of moral development is too simplistic an idea. Often, we use the various stages at different times and in different situations.

Second, it is culturally biased. Like much of academia, it is rooted in the social values of the west. He doesn’t pay any attention to the diversity of moral values and reasoning worldwide.

Third, moral reasoning does not equal moral acting. These dimensions take for granted how aligned someone’s moral reasoning and moral acting is. Often, internal moral reasoning works in conjunction with many external factors to produce moral acting.

Fourth, Kohlberg implies that justice is the most fundamental moral principle. There is a gendered implication to this idea. Carol Gilligan (1977) argued that Kohlberg’s theory does not account for the fact that women tend to approach moral problems using ‘ethics of care’, rather than ‘ethics of justice’. Kohlberg’s argument is based on an ethics of justice, suggesting that the principle of caring for others is not as important. (This is a big oversimplification, but a very interesting idea.)