lawrence kohlberg essays on moral development

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Sweepstakes
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development

Verywell / Bailey Mariner

• Applications
• Other Theories

Take This Pop Quiz

Kohlberg's theory of moral development is a theory that focuses on how children develop morality and moral reasoning. Kohlberg's theory suggests that moral development occurs in a series of six stages and that moral logic is primarily focused on seeking and maintaining justice.

Here we discuss how Kohlberg developed his theory of moral development and the six stages he identified as part of this process. We also share some critiques of Kohlberg's theory, many of which suggest that it may be biased based on the limited demographics of the subjects studied.

Test Your Knowledge

At the end of this article, take a fast and free pop quiz to see how much you've learned about Kohlberg's theory.

What Is Moral Development?

Moral development is the process by which people develop the distinction between right and wrong (morality) and engage in reasoning between the two (moral reasoning).

How do people develop morality? This question has fascinated parents, religious leaders, and philosophers for ages, but moral development has also become a hot-button issue in psychology and education. Do parental or societal influences play a greater role in moral development? Do all kids develop morality in similar ways?

American psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg developed one of the best-known theories exploring some of these basic questions. His work modified and expanded upon Jean Piaget's previous work but was more centered on explaining how children develop moral reasoning.

Kohlberg extended Piaget's theory, proposing that moral development is a continual process that occurs throughout the lifespan. Kohlberg's theory outlines six stages of moral development within three different levels.

In recent years, Kohlberg's theory has been criticized as being Western-centric with a bias toward men (he primarily used male research subjects) and for having a narrow worldview based on upper-middle-class value systems and perspectives.

How Kohlberg Developed His Theory

Kohlberg based his theory on a series of moral dilemmas presented to his study subjects. Participants were also interviewed to determine the reasoning behind their judgments in each scenario.

One example was "Heinz Steals the Drug." In this scenario, a woman has cancer and her doctors believe only one drug might save her. This drug had been discovered by a local pharmacist and he was able to make it for $200 per dose and sell it for $2,000 per dose. The woman's husband, Heinz, could only raise $1,000 to buy the drug.

He tried to negotiate with the pharmacist for a lower price or to be extended credit to pay for it over time. But the pharmacist refused to sell it for any less or to accept partial payments. Rebuffed, Heinz instead broke into the pharmacy and stole the drug to save his wife. Kohlberg asked, "Should the husband have done that?"

Kohlberg was not interested so much in the answer to whether Heinz was wrong or right but in the reasoning for each participant's decision. He then classified their reasoning into the stages of his theory of moral development.

Stages of Moral Development

Kohlberg's theory is broken down into three primary levels. At each level of moral development, there are two stages. Similar to how Piaget believed that not all people reach the highest levels of cognitive development, Kohlberg believed not everyone progresses to the highest stages of moral development.

Level 1. Preconventional Morality

Preconventional morality is the earliest period of moral development. It lasts until around the age of 9. At this age, children's decisions are primarily shaped by the expectations of adults and the consequences of breaking the rules. There are two stages within this level:

• Stage 1 (Obedience and Punishment) : The earliest stages of moral development, obedience and punishment are especially common in young children, but adults are also capable of expressing this type of reasoning. According to Kohlberg, people at this stage see rules as fixed and absolute. Obeying the rules is important because it is a way to avoid punishment.
• Stage 2 (Individualism and Exchange) : At the individualism and exchange stage of moral development, children account for individual points of view and judge actions based on how they serve individual needs. In the Heinz dilemma, children argued that the best course of action was the choice that best served Heinz’s needs. Reciprocity is possible at this point in moral development, but only if it serves one's own interests.

Level 2. Conventional Morality

The next period of moral development is marked by the acceptance of social rules regarding what is good and moral. During this time, adolescents and adults internalize the moral standards they have learned from their role models and from society.

This period also focuses on the acceptance of authority and conforming to the norms of the group. There are two stages at this level of morality:

• Stage 3 (Developing Good Interpersonal Relationships) : Often referred to as the "good boy-good girl" orientation, this stage of the interpersonal relationship of moral development is focused on living up to social expectations and roles . There is an emphasis on conformity , being "nice," and consideration of how choices influence relationships.
• Stage 4 (Maintaining Social Order) : This stage is focused on ensuring that social order is maintained. At this stage of moral development, people begin to consider society as a whole when making judgments. The focus is on maintaining law and order by following the rules, doing one’s duty, and respecting authority.

Level 3. Postconventional Morality

At this level of moral development, people develop an understanding of abstract principles of morality. The two stages at this level are:

• Stage 5 (Social Contract and Individual Rights ): The ideas of a social contract and individual rights cause people in the next stage to begin to account for the differing values, opinions, and beliefs of other people. Rules of law are important for maintaining a society, but members of the society should agree upon these standards.
• Stage 6 (Universal Principles) : Kohlberg’s final level of moral reasoning is based on universal ethical principles and abstract reasoning. At this stage, people follow these internalized principles of justice, even if they conflict with laws and rules.

Kohlberg believed that only a relatively small percentage of people ever reach the post-conventional stages (around 10 to 15%). One analysis found that while stages one to four could be seen as universal in populations throughout the world, the fifth and sixth stages were extremely rare in all populations.

Applications for Kohlberg's Theory

Understanding Kohlberg's theory of moral development is important in that it can help parents guide their children as they develop their moral character. Parents with younger children might work on rule obeyance, for instance, whereas they might teach older children about social expectations.

Teachers and other educators can also apply Kohlberg's theory in the classroom, providing additional moral guidance. A kindergarten teacher could help enhance moral development by setting clear rules for the classroom, and the consequences for violating them. This helps kids at stage one of moral development.

A teacher in high school might focus more on the development that occurs in stage three (developing good interpersonal relationships) and stage four (maintaining social order). This could be accomplished by having the students take part in setting the rules to be followed in the classroom, giving them a better idea of the reasoning behind these rules.

Criticisms for Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development

Kohlberg's theory played an important role in the development of moral psychology. While the theory has been highly influential, aspects of the theory have been critiqued for a number of reasons:

• Moral reasoning does not equal moral behavior : Kohlberg's theory is concerned with moral thinking, but there is a big difference between knowing what we ought to do versus our actual actions. Moral reasoning, therefore, may not lead to moral behavior.
• Overemphasizes justice : Critics have pointed out that Kohlberg's theory of moral development overemphasizes the concept of justice when making moral choices. Factors such as compassion, caring, and other interpersonal feelings may play an important part in moral reasoning.
• Cultural bias : Individualist cultures emphasize personal rights, while collectivist cultures stress the importance of society and community. Eastern, collectivist cultures may have different moral outlooks that Kohlberg's theory does not take into account.
• Age bias : Most of his subjects were children under the age of 16 who obviously had no experience with marriage. The Heinz dilemma may have been too abstract for these children to understand, and a scenario more applicable to their everyday concerns might have led to different results.
• Gender bias : Kohlberg's critics, including Carol Gilligan, have suggested that Kohlberg's theory was gender-biased since all of the subjects in his sample were male. Kohlberg believed that women tended to remain at the third level of moral development because they place a stronger emphasis on things such as social relationships and the welfare of others.

Gilligan instead suggested that Kohlberg's theory overemphasizes concepts such as justice and does not adequately address moral reasoning founded on the principles and ethics of caring and concern for others.

Other Theories of Moral Development

Kohlberg isn't the only psychologist to theorize how we develop morally. There are several other theories of moral development.

Piaget's Theory of Moral Development

Kohlberg's theory is an expansion of Piaget's theory of moral development. Piaget described a three-stage process of moral development:

• Stage 1 : The child is more concerned with developing and mastering their motor and social skills, with no general concern about morality.
• Stage 2 : The child develops unconditional respect both for authority figures and the rules in existence.
• Stage 3 : The child starts to see rules as being arbitrary, also considering an actor's intentions when judging whether an act or behavior is moral or immoral.

Kohlberg expanded on this theory to include more stages in the process. Additionally, Kohlberg believed that the final stage is rarely achieved by individuals whereas Piaget's stages of moral development are common to all.

Moral Foundations Theory

Proposed by Jonathan Haidt, Craig Joseph, and Jesse Graham, the moral foundations theory is based on three morality principles:

• Intuition develops before strategic reasoning . Put another way, our reaction comes first, which is then followed by rationalization.
• Morality involves more than harm and fairness . Contained within this second principle are a variety of considerations related to morality. It includes: care vs. harm, liberty vs. oppression, fairness vs. cheating, loyalty vs. betrayal , authority vs. subversion, and sanctity vs. degradation.
• Morality can both bind groups and blind individuals . When people are part of a group, they will tend to adopt that group's same value systems. They may also sacrifice their own morals for the group's benefit.

While Kohlberg's theory is primarily focused on help vs. harm, moral foundations theory encompasses several more dimensions of morality. However, this theory also fails to explain the "rules" people use when determining what is best for society.

Normative Theories of Moral Behavior

Several other theories exist that attempt to explain the development of morality , specifically in relation to social justice. Some fall into the category of transcendental institutionalist, which involves trying to create "perfect justice." Others are realization-focused, concentrating more on removing injustices.

One theory falling into the second category is social choice theory. Social choice theory is a collection of models that seek to explain how individuals can use their input (their preferences) to impact society as a whole. An example of this is voting, which allows the majority to decide what is "right" and "wrong."

See how much you've learned (or maybe already knew!) about Kohlberg's theory of moral development with this quick, free pop quiz.

While Kohlberg's theory of moral development has been criticized, the theory played an important role in the emergence of the field of moral psychology. Researchers continue to explore how moral reasoning develops and changes through life as well as the universality of these stages. Understanding these stages offers helpful insights into the ways that both children and adults make moral choices and how moral thinking may influence decisions and behaviors.

Lapsley D. Moral agency, identity and narrative in moral development .  Hum Dev . 2010;53(2):87-97. doi:10.1159/000288210

Elorrieta-Grimalt M. A critical analysis of moral education according to Lawrence Kohlberg .  Educación y Educadores . 2012;15(3):497-512. doi:10.5294/edu.2012.15.3.9

Govrin A. From ethics of care to psychology of care: Reconnecting ethics of care to contemporary moral psychology .  Front Psychol . 2014;5:1135. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01135

American Psychological Association. Heinz dilemma .

American Psychological Association. Kohlberg's theory of moral development .

Kohlberg L, Essays On Moral Development . Harper & Row; 1985.

Ma HK. The moral development of the child: An integrated model .  Front Public Health . 2013;1:57. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2013.00057

Gibbs J.  Moral Development And Reality . 4th ed. Oxford University Press; 2019.

Gilligan C.  In A Different Voice . Harvard University Press; 2016.

Patanella D. Piaget's theory of moral development . Encyclopedia of Child Behavior and Development . 2011. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-79061-9_2167

Dubas KM, Dubas SM, Mehta R. Theories of justice and moral behavior . J Legal Ethical Regulatory Issues . 2014;17(2):17-35.

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

• Medical Books

Sorry, there was a problem.

Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

Key Takeaways

• Lawrence Kohlberg formulated a theory asserting that individuals progress through six distinct stages of moral reasoning from infancy to adulthood.
• He grouped these stages into three broad categories of moral reasoning, pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional. Each level is associated with increasingly complex stages of moral development.
• Kohlberg suggested that people move through these stages in a fixed order and that moral understanding is linked to cognitive development . 

Heinz Dilemma

Lawrence Kohlberg (1958) agreed with Piaget’s (1932) theory of moral development in principle but wanted to develop his ideas further.

He used Piaget’s storytelling technique to tell people stories involving moral dilemmas.  In each case, he presented a choice to be considered, for example, between the rights of some authority and the needs of some deserving individual unfairly treated.

After presenting people with various moral dilemmas, Kohlberg categorized their responses into different stages of moral reasoning.

Using children’s responses to a series of moral dilemmas, Kohlberg established that the reasoning behind the decision was a greater indication of moral development than the actual answer.

One of Kohlberg’s best-known stories (1958) concerns Heinz, who lived somewhere in Europe.

Heinz’s wife was dying from a particular type of cancer. Doctors said a new drug might save her. The drug had been discovered by a local chemist, and the Heinz tried desperately to buy some, but the chemist was charging ten times the money it cost to make the drug, and this was much more than the Heinz could afford. Heinz could only raise half the money, even after help from family and friends. He explained to the chemist that his wife was dying and asked if he could have the drug cheaper or pay the rest of the money later. The chemist refused, saying that he had discovered the drug and was going to make money from it. The husband was desperate to save his wife, so later that night he broke into the chemist’s and stole the drug. Should Heinz have broken into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?

Kohlberg asked a series of questions such as:

• Should Heinz have stolen the drug?
• Would it change anything if Heinz did not love his wife?
• What if the person dying was a stranger, would it make any difference?
• Should the police arrest the chemist for murder if the woman dies?

By studying the answers from children of different ages to these questions, Kohlberg hoped to discover how moral reasoning changed as people grew older.

The sample comprised 72 Chicago boys aged 10–16 years, 58 of whom were followed up at three-yearly intervals for 20 years (Kohlberg, 1984).

Each boy was given a 2-hour interview based on the ten dilemmas. Kohlberg was interested not in whether the boys judged the action right or wrong but in the reasons for the decision. He found that these reasons tended to change as the children got older.

Kohlberg identified three levels of moral reasoning: preconventional, conventional, and postconventional. Each level has two sub-stages.

People can only pass through these levels in the order listed. Each new stage replaces the reasoning typical of the earlier stage. Not everyone achieves all the stages. 

Disequilibrium plays a crucial role in Kohlberg’s stages of moral development. A child encountering a moral issue may recognize limitations in their current reasoning approach, often prompted by exposure to others’ viewpoints. Improvements in perspective-taking are key to progressing through Kohlberg’s stages of moral development. As children mature, they increasingly understand issues from others’ viewpoints. For instance, a child at the preconventional level typically perceives an issue primarily in terms of personal consequences. In contrast, a child at the conventional level tends to consider the perspectives of others more substantially.

Level 1 – Preconventional Morality

Preconventional morality is the first level of moral development, lasting until approximately age 8. During this level, children accept the authority (and moral code) of others. 

Preconventional morality is when people follow rules because they don’t want to get in trouble or they want to get a reward. This level of morality is mostly based on what authority figures like parents or teachers tell you to do rather than what you think is right or wrong.

Authority is outside the individual, and children often make moral decisions based on the physical consequences of actions.

For example, if an action leads to punishment, it must be bad; if it leads to a reward, it must be good.

So, people at this level don’t have their own personal sense of right and wrong yet. They think that something is good if they get rewarded for it and bad if they get punished for it.

For example, if you get candy for behaving, you think you were good, but if you get a scolding for misbehaving, you think you were bad.

At the preconventional level, children don’t have a personal code of morality. Instead, moral decisions are shaped by the standards of adults and the consequences of following or breaking their rules.

Stage 1. Obedience and Punishment Orientation . The child/individual is good to avoid being punished. If a person is punished, they must have done wrong.

Stage 2. Individualism and Exchange . At this stage, children recognize that there is not just one right view handed down by the authorities. Different individuals have different viewpoints.

Level 2 – Conventional Morality

Conventional morality is the adolescent phase of moral development focused on societal norms and external expectations to discern right from wrong, often grounded in tradition, cultural practices, or established codes of conduct.

We internalize the moral standards of valued adult role models at the conventional level (most adolescents and adults).

Authority is internalized but not questioned, and reasoning is based on the group’s norms to which the person belongs.

A social system that stresses the responsibilities of relationships and social order is seen as desirable and must influence our view of right and wrong.

So, people who follow conventional morality believe that it’s important to follow society’s rules and expectations to maintain order and prevent problems.

For example, refusing to cheat on a test is a part of conventional morality because cheating can harm the academic system and create societal problems.

Stage 3. Good Interpersonal Relationships . The child/individual is good to be seen as being a good person by others. Therefore, answers relate to the approval of others.

Stage 4. Law and Order Morality . The child/individual becomes aware of the wider rules of society, so judgments concern obeying the rules to uphold the law and avoid guilt.

Level 3 – Postconventional Morality

Postconventional morality is the third level of moral development and is characterized by an individual’s understanding of universal ethical principles.

Postconventional morality is when people decide based on what they think is right rather than just following the rules of society. This means that people at this level of morality have their own ethical principles and values and don’t just do what society tells them to do.

At this level, people think about what is fair, what is just, and what values are important.

What is considered morally acceptable in any given situation is determined by what is the response most in keeping with these principles.

They also think about how their choices might affect others and try to make good decisions for everyone, not just themselves.

Values are abstract and ill-defined but might include: the preservation of life at all costs and the importance of human dignity. Individual judgment is based on self-chosen principles, and moral reasoning is based on individual rights and justice.

According to Kohlberg, this level of moral reasoning is as far as most people get.

Only 10-15% are capable of abstract thinking necessary for stage 5 or 6 (post-conventional morality). That is to say, most people take their moral views from those around them, and only a minority think through ethical principles for themselves.

Stage 5. Social Contract and Individual Rights . The child/individual becomes aware that while rules/laws might exist for the good of the greatest number, there are times when they will work against the interest of particular individuals. The issues are not always clear-cut. For example, in Heinz’s dilemma, the protection of life is more important than breaking the law against stealing.

Stage 6. Universal Principles . People at this stage have developed their own set of moral guidelines, which may or may not fit the law. The principles apply to everyone. E.g., human rights, justice, and equality.  The person will be prepared to act to defend these principles even if it means going against the rest of society in the process and having to pay the consequences of disapproval and or imprisonment. Kohlberg doubted few people had reached this stage.

Problems with Kohlberg’s Methods

1. the dilemmas are artificial (i.e., they lack ecological validity).

Most dilemmas are unfamiliar to most people (Rosen, 1980). For example, it is all very well in the Heinz dilemma, asking subjects whether Heinz should steal the drug to save his wife.

However, Kohlberg’s subjects were aged between 10 and 16. They have never been married, and never been placed in a situation remotely like the one in the story.

How should they know whether Heinz should steal the drug?

2. The sample is biased

Kohlberg’s (1969) theory suggested males more frequently progress beyond stage four in moral development, implying females lacked moral reasoning skills.

His research assistant, Carol Gilligan, disputed this, who argued that women’s moral reasoning differed, not deficient.

She criticized Kohlberg’s theory for focusing solely on upper-class white males, arguing women value interpersonal connections. For instance, women often oppose theft in the Heinz dilemma due to potential repercussions, such as separation from his wife if Heinz is imprisoned.

Gilligan (1982) conducted new studies interviewing both men and women, finding women more often emphasized care, relationships and context rather than abstract rules. Gilligan argued that Kohlberg’s theory overlooked this relational “different voice” in morality.

According to Gilligan (1977), because Kohlberg’s theory was based on an all-male sample, the stages reflect a male definition of morality (it’s androcentric).

Men’s morality is based on abstract principles of law and justice, while women’s is based on principles of compassion and care.

Further, the gender bias issue raised by Gilligan is a reminder of the significant gender debate still present in psychology, which, when ignored, can greatly impact the results obtained through psychological research.

3. The dilemmas are hypothetical (i.e., they are not real)

Kohlberg’s approach to studying moral reasoning relied heavily on his semi-structured moral judgment interview. Participants were presented with hypothetical moral dilemmas, and their justifications were analyzed to determine their stage of moral reasoning.

Some critiques of Kohlberg’s method are that it lacks ecological validity, removes reasoning from real-life contexts, and defines morality narrowly in terms of justice reasoning.

Psychologists concur with Kohlberg’s moral development theory, yet emphasize the difference between moral reasoning and behavior.

What we claim we’d do in a hypothetical situation often differs from our actions when faced with the actual circumstance. In essence, our actions might not align with our proclaimed values.

In a real situation, what course of action a person takes will have real consequences – and sometimes very unpleasant ones for themselves. Would subjects reason in the same way if they were placed in a real situation? We don’t know.

The fact that Kohlberg’s theory is heavily dependent on an individual’s response to an artificial dilemma questions the validity of the results obtained through this research.

People may respond very differently to real-life situations that they find themselves in than they do to an artificial dilemma presented to them in the comfort of a research environment.

4. Poor research design

How Kohlberg carried out his research when constructing this theory may not have been the best way to test whether all children follow the same sequence of stage progression.

His research was cross-sectional , meaning that he interviewed children of different ages to see their moral development level.

A better way to see if all children follow the same order through the stages would be to conduct longitudinal research on the same children.

However, longitudinal research on Kohlberg’s theory has since been carried out by Colby et al. (1983), who tested 58 male participants of Kohlberg’s original study.

She tested them six times in 27 years and supported Kohlberg’s original conclusion, which is that we all pass through the stages of moral development in the same order.

Contemporary research employs more diverse methods beyond Kohlberg’s interview approach, such as narrative analysis, to study moral experience. These newer methods aim to understand moral reasoning and development within authentic contexts and experiences.

• Tappan and colleagues (1996) promote a narrative approach that examines how individuals construct stories and identities around moral experiences. This draws from the sociocultural tradition of examining identity in context. Tappan argues narrative provides a more contextualized understanding of moral development.
• Colby and Damon’s (1992) empirical research uses in-depth life story interviews to study moral exemplars – people dedicated to moral causes. Instead of hypothetical dilemmas, they ask participants to describe real moral challenges and commitments. Their goal is to respect exemplars as co-investigators of moral meaning-making.
• Walker and Pitts’ (1995) studies use open-ended interviews asking people to discuss real-life moral dilemmas and reflect on the moral domain in their own words. This elicits more naturalistic conceptions of morality compared to Kohlberg’s abstract decontextualized approach.

Problems with Kohlberg’s Theory

1. are there distinct stages of moral development.

Kohlberg claims there are, but the evidence does not always support this conclusion.

For example, a person who justified a decision based on principled reasoning in one situation (postconventional morality stage 5 or 6) would frequently fall back on conventional reasoning (stage 3 or 4) with another story.

In practice, it seems that reasoning about right and wrong depends more on the situation than on general rules. Moreover, individuals do not always progress through the stages, and Rest (1979) found that one in fourteen slipped backward.

The evidence for distinct stages of moral development looks very weak. Some would argue that behind the theory is a culturally biased belief in the superiority of American values over those of other cultures and societies.

Gilligan (1982) did not dismiss developmental psychology or morality. She acknowledged that children undergo moral development in stages and even praised Kohlberg’s stage logic as “brilliant” (Jorgensen, 2006, p. 186). However, she preferred Erikson’s model over the more rigid Piagetian stages.

While Gilligan supported Kohlberg’s stage theory as rational, she expressed discomfort with its structural descriptions that lacked context.

She also raised concerns about the theory’s universality, pointing out that it primarily reflected Western culture (Jorgensen, 2006, pp. 187-188).

Neo-Kohlbergian Schema Model

Rest and colleagues (199) have developed a theoretical model building on but moving beyond Kohlberg’s stage-based approach to moral development. Their model outlines four components of moral behavior: moral sensitivity, moral judgment, moral motivation, and moral character.

For the moral judgment component, Rest et al. propose that individuals use moral schemas rather than progress through discrete stages of moral reasoning.

Schemas are generalized knowledge structures that help us interpret information and situations. An individual can have multiple schemas available to make sense of moral issues, rather than being constrained to a single developmental stage.

Some examples of moral schemas proposed by Rest and colleagues include:

• Personal Interest Schema – focused on individual interests and preferences
• Maintaining Norms Schema – emphasizes following rules and norms
• Postconventional Schema – considers moral ideals and principles

Rather than viewing development as movement to higher reasoning stages, the neo-Kohlbergian approach sees moral growth as acquiring additional, more complex moral schemas. Lower schemas are not replaced, but higher order moral schemas become available to complement existing ones.

The schema concept attempts to address critiques of the stage model, such as its rigidity and lack of context sensitivity. Using schemas allows for greater flexibility and integration of social factors into moral reasoning.

2. Does moral judgment match moral behavior?

Kohlberg never claimed that there would be a one-to-one correspondence between thinking and acting (what we say and what we do), but he does suggest that the two are linked.

However, Bee (1994) suggests that we also need to take into account of:

a) habits that people have developed over time. b) whether people see situations as demanding their participation. c) the costs and benefits of behaving in a particular way. d) competing motive such as peer pressure, self-interest and so on.

Overall, Bee points out that moral behavior is only partly a question of moral reasoning. It also has to do with social factors.

3. Is justice the most fundamental moral principle?

This is Kohlberg’s view. However, Gilligan (1977) suggests that the principle of caring for others is equally important. Furthermore, Kohlberg claims that the moral reasoning of males has often been in advance of that of females.

Girls are often found to be at stage 3 in Kohlberg’s system (good boy-nice girl orientation), whereas boys are more often found to be at stage 4 (Law and Order orientation). Gilligan (p. 484) replies:

“The very traits that have traditionally defined the goodness of women, their care for and sensitivity to the needs of others, are those that mark them out as deficient in moral development”.

In other words, Gilligan claims that there is a sex bias in Kohlberg’s theory. He neglects the feminine voice of compassion, love, and non-violence, which is associated with the socialization of girls.

Gilligan concluded that Kohlberg’s theory did not account for the fact that women approach moral problems from an ‘ethics of care’, rather than an ‘ethics of justice’ perspective, which challenges some of the fundamental assumptions of Kohlberg’s theory.

In contrast to Kohlberg’s impersonal “ethics of justice”, Gilligan proposed an alternative “ethics of care” grounded in compassion and responsiveness to needs within relationships (Gilligan, 1982).

Her care perspective highlights emotion, empathy and understanding over detached logic. Gilligan saw care and justice ethics as complementary moral orientations.

Walker et al. (1995) found everyday moral conflicts often revolve around relationships rather than justice; individuals describe relying more on intuition than moral reasoning in dilemmas. This raises questions about the centrality of reasoning in moral functioning.

4. Do people make rational moral decisions?

Kohlbeg’s theory emphasizes rationality and logical decision-making at the expense of emotional and contextual factors in moral decision-making.

One significant criticism is that Kohlberg’s emphasis on reason can create an image of the moral person as cold and detached from real-life situations. 

Carol Gilligan critiqued Kohlberg’s theory as overly rationalistic and not accounting for care-based morality commonly found in women. She argued for a “different voice” grounded in relationships and responsiveness to particular individuals.

The criticism suggests that by portraying moral reasoning as primarily cognitive and detached from emotional and situational factors, Kohlberg’s theory oversimplifies real-life moral decision-making, which often involves emotions, social dynamics, cultural nuances, and practical constraints.

Critics contend that his model does not adequately capture the multifaceted nature of morality in the complexities of everyday life.

Bee, H. L. (1994). Lifespan development . HarperCollins College Publishers.

Blum, L. A. (1988). Gilligan and Kohlberg: Implications for moral theory.  Ethics ,  98 (3), 472-491.

Colby, A., Kohlberg, L., Gibbs, J., & Lieberman, M. (1983). A longitudinal study of moral judgment. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development , 48 (1-2, Serial No. 200). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Day, J. M., & Tappan, M. B. (1996). The narrative approach to moral development: From the epistemic subject to dialogical selves.  Human Development ,  39 (2), 67-82.

Gilligan, C. (1977). In a different voice: Women’s conceptions of self and of morality. Harvard Educational Review , 47(4), 481-517.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice . Harvard University Press.

Gilligan, C. (1995). Hearing the difference: Theorizing connection. Hypatia, 10 (2), 120-127.

Jorgensen, G. (2006). Kohlberg and Gilligan: duet or duel?.  Journal of Moral Education ,  35 (2), 179-196.

Kohlberg, L. (1958). The Development of Modes of Thinking and Choices in Years 10 to 16. Ph. D. Dissertation , University of Chicago.

Kohlberg, L. (1984). The Psychology of Moral Development: The Nature and Validity of Moral Stages (Essays on Moral Development, Volume 2) . Harper & Row

Piaget, J. (1932). The moral judgment of the child . London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co.

Rest, J. R. (1979). Development in judging moral issues . University of Minnesota Press.

Rosen, B. (1980). Moral dilemmas and their treatment. In, Moral development, moral education, and Kohlberg. B. Munsey (Ed). (1980), pp. 232-263. Birmingham, Alabama: Religious Education Press.

Walker, L. J., Pitts, R. C., Hennig, K. H., & Matsuba, M. K. (1995). Reasoning about morality and real-life moral problems.

Further Information

• BBC Radio 4: The Heinz Dilemma
• The Science of Morality
• Piaget’s Theory of Moral Development

What is an example of moral development theory in real life?

An example is a student who witnesses cheating on an important exam. The student is faced with the dilemma of whether to report the cheating or keep quiet.

A person at the pre-conventional level of moral development might choose not to report cheating because they fear the consequences or because they believe that everyone cheats.

A person at the conventional level might report cheating because they believe it is their duty to uphold the rules and maintain fairness in the academic environment.

A person at the post-conventional level might weigh the ethical implications of both options and make a decision based on their principles and values, such as honesty, fairness, and integrity, even if it may come with negative consequences.

This example demonstrates how moral development theory can help us understand how individuals reason about ethical dilemmas and make decisions based on their moral reasoning.

What are the examples of stage 6 universal principles?

Stage 6 of Kohlberg’s moral development theory, also known as the Universal Ethical Principles stage, involves moral reasoning based on self-chosen ethical principles that are comprehensive and consistent. Examples might include:

Equal human rights : Someone at this stage would believe in the fundamental right of all individuals to life, liberty, and fair treatment. They would advocate for and act according to these rights, even if it meant opposing laws or societal norms.

Justice for all : A person at this stage believes in justice for all individuals and would strive to ensure fairness in all situations. For example, they might campaign against a law they believe to be unjust, even if it is widely accepted by society.

Non-violence : A commitment to non-violence could be a universal principle for some at this stage. For instance, they might choose peaceful protest or civil disobedience in the face of unjust laws or societal practices.

Social contract : People at this stage might also strongly believe in the social contract, wherein individuals willingly sacrifice some freedoms for societal benefits. However, they also understand that these societal norms can be challenged and changed if they infringe upon the universal rights of individuals.

Respect for human dignity and worth : Individuals at this stage view each person as possessing inherent value, and this belief guides their actions and judgments. They uphold the dignity and worth of every individual, regardless of social status or circumstance.

What is the Kohlberg’s Heinz dilemma?

The Heinz dilemma is a moral question proposed by Kohlberg in his studies on moral development. It involves a man named Heinz who considers stealing a drug he cannot afford to save his dying wife, prompting discussion on the moral implications and justifications of his potential actions.

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center
• Introduction

Stage 1: Punishment/obedience orientation

Stage 2: instrumental purpose orientation, stage 3: good boy/nice girl orientation, stage 4: law and order orientation, stage 5: social contract orientation, stage 6: universal ethical principle orientation, basic tenets of kohlberg’s theory, measurement of moral development.

• When did science begin?
• Where was science invented?

Lawrence Kohlberg’s stages of moral development

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• National Center for Biotechnology Information - PubMed Central - Construct validity of the Moral Development Scale for Professionals (MDSP)
• Khan Academy - Kohlberg moral development
• Simply Psychology - Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development
• Concordia University Open Textbooks - Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development
• Verywell Mind - Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development
• Table Of Contents

Lawrence Kohlberg’s stages of moral development , a comprehensive stage theory of moral development based on Jean Piaget ’s theory of moral judgment for children (1932) and developed by Lawrence Kohlberg in 1958. Cognitive in nature, Kohlberg’s theory focuses on the thinking process that occurs when one decides whether a behaviour is right or wrong. Thus, the theoretical emphasis is on how one decides to respond to a moral dilemma, not what one decides or what one actually does.

(Read Peter Singer’s Britannica entry on ethics.)

Kohlberg’s theory, though extremely influential, was based on research that used only boys as subjects. In the 1980s the theory was criticized by the American psychologist Carol Gilligan for universalizing patterns of moral development exhibited by boys and ignoring the distinct patterns characteristic of girls.

Theoretical framework

The framework of Kohlberg’s theory consists of six stages arranged sequentially in successive tiers of complexity. He organized his six stages into three general levels of moral development.

Level 1: Preconventional level

At the preconventional level, morality is externally controlled. Rules imposed by authority figures are conformed to in order to avoid punishment or receive rewards. This perspective involves the idea that what is right is what one can get away with or what is personally satisfying. Level 1 has two stages.

Behaviour is determined by consequences. The individual will obey in order to avoid punishment.

Behaviour is determined again by consequences. The individual focuses on receiving rewards or satisfying personal needs.

Level 2: Conventional level

At the conventional level, conformity to social rules remains important to the individual. However, the emphasis shifts from self-interest to relationships with other people and social systems. The individual strives to support rules that are set forth by others such as parents, peers, and the government in order to win their approval or to maintain social order.

Behaviour is determined by social approval. The individual wants to maintain or win the affection and approval of others by being a “good person.”

Social rules and laws determine behaviour. The individual now takes into consideration a larger perspective, that of societal laws. Moral decision making becomes more than consideration of close ties to others. The individual believes that rules and laws maintain social order that is worth preserving.

Level 3: Postconventional or principled level

At the postconventional level, the individual moves beyond the perspective of his or her own society. Morality is defined in terms of abstract principles and values that apply to all situations and societies. The individual attempts to take the perspective of all individuals.

Individual rights determine behaviour. The individual views laws and rules as flexible tools for improving human purposes. That is, given the right situation, there are exceptions to rules. When laws are not consistent with individual rights and the interests of the majority, they do not bring about good for people and alternatives should be considered.

According to Kohlberg, this is the highest stage of functioning. However, he claimed that some individuals will never reach this level. At this stage, the appropriate action is determined by one’s self-chosen ethical principles of conscience . These principles are abstract and universal in application. This type of reasoning involves taking the perspective of every person or group that could potentially be affected by the decision.

The numerous studies investigating moral reasoning based on Kohlberg’s theory have confirmed basic tenets regarding the topic area. Cross-sectional data have shown that older individuals tend to use higher stages of moral reasoning when compared with younger individuals, while longitudinal studies report “upward” progression, in accordance with Kohlberg’s theoretical order of stages. In addition, studies have revealed that comprehension of the stages is cumulative (e.g., if a person understands stage 3, he or she understands the lower stages but not necessarily the higher stages), and comprehension of higher stages is increasingly difficult. Moreover, age trends in moral development have received cross-cultural support. Lastly, data support the claim that every individual progresses through the same sequence of development; however, the rates of development will vary.

Since the development of Kohlberg’s theory, a number of measurement tools that purport to measure moral reasoning have been constructed. Kohlberg’s Moral Judgment Interview (1969) is a rather lengthy structured interview requiring trained interviewers and scorers. Another instrument is the Defining Issues Test developed by James Rest (1974). These measures, ranging from projective tests to structured, objective assessments , all consist of a set of hypothetical stories involving moral dilemmas.

5.12: Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development

Kohlberg (1963) built on the work of Piaget and was interested in finding out how our moral reasoning changes as we get older. He wanted to find out how people decide what is right and what is wrong. Just as Piaget believed that children’s cognitive development follows specific patterns, Kohlberg (1984) argued that we learn our moral values through active thinking and reasoning, and that moral development follows a series of stages. Kohlberg’s six stages are generally organized into three levels of moral reasons. To study moral development, Kohlberg posed moral dilemmas to children, teenagers, and adults, such as the following:

A man’s wife is dying of cancer and there is only one drug that can save her. The only place to get the drug is at the store of a pharmacist who is known to overcharge people for drugs. The man can only pay $1,000, but the pharmacist wants $2,000, and refuses to sell it to him for less, or to let him pay later. Desperate, the man later breaks into the pharmacy and steals the medicine. Should he have done that? Was it right or wrong? Why? (Kohlberg, 1984)

• Level One-Preconventional Morality: In stage one, moral reasoning is based on concepts of punishment. The child believes that if the consequence for an action is punishment, then the action was wrong. In the second stage, the child bases his or her thinking on self-interest and reward. “You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours.” The youngest subjects seemed to answer based on what would happen to the man as a result of the act. For example, they might say the man should not break into the pharmacy because the pharmacist might find him and beat him. Or they might say that the man should break in and steal the drug and his wife will give him a big kiss. Right or wrong, both decisions were based on what would physically happen to the man as a result of the act. This is a self-centered approach to moral decision-making. He called this most superficial understanding of right and wrong preconventional morality . Preconventional morality focuses on self-interest . Punishment is avoided and rewards are sought. Adults can also fall into these stages, particularly when they are under pressure.
• Level Two-Conventional Morality: Those tested who based their answers on what other people would think of the man as a result of his act, were placed in Level Two. For instance, they might say he should break into the store, and then everyone would think he was a good husband, or he should not because it is against the law. In either case, right and wrong is determined by what other people think. In stage three, the person wants to please others. At stage four, the person acknowledges the importance of social norms or laws and wants to be a good member of the group or society. A good decision is one that gains the approval of others or one that complies with the law. This he called conventional morality , people care about the effect of their actions on others . Some older children, adolescents, and adults use this reasoning.
• Level Three-Postconventional Morality: Right and wrong are based on social contracts established for the good of everyone and that can transcend the self and social convention. For example, the man should break into the store because, even if it is against the law, the wife needs the drug and her life is more important than the consequences the man might face for breaking the law. Alternatively, the man should not violate the principle of the right of property because this rule is essential for social order. In either case, the person’s judgment goes beyond what happens to the self. It is based on a concern for others; for society as a whole, or for an ethical standard rather than a legal standard. This level is called postconventional moral development  because it goes beyond convention or what other people think to a higher, universal ethical principle of conduct that may or may not be reflected in the law. Notice that such thinking is the kind Supreme Court justices do all day when deliberating whether a law is moral or ethical, which requires being able to think abstractly. Often this is not accomplished until a person reaches adolescence or adulthood. In the fifth stage, laws are recognized as social contracts. The reasons for the laws, like justice, equality, and dignity, are used to evaluate decisions and interpret laws. In the sixth stage, individually determined universal ethical principles are weighed to make moral decisions. Kohlberg said that few people ever reach this stage. The six stages can be reviewed in Table 5.5.

Although research has supported Kohlberg’s idea that moral reasoning changes from an early emphasis on punishment and social rules and regulations to an emphasis on more general ethical principles, as with Piaget’s approach, Kohlberg’s stage model is probably too simple. For one, people may use higher levels of reasoning for some types of problems, but revert to lower levels in situations where doing so is more consistent with their goals or beliefs (Rest, 1979). Second, it has been argued that the stage model is particularly appropriate for Western, rather than non-Western, samples in which allegiance to social norms, such as respect for authority, may be particularly important (Haidt, 2001). In addition, there is frequently little correlation between how we score on the moral stages and how we behave in real life.

Perhaps the most important critique of Kohlberg’s theory is that it may describe the moral development of males better than it describes that of females. Gilligan (1982) has argued that, because of differences in their socialization, males tend to value principles of justice and rights, whereas females value caring for and helping others. Although there is little evidence for a gender difference in Kohlberg’s stages of moral development (Turiel, 1998), it is true that girls and women tend to focus more on issues of caring, helping, and connecting with others than do boys and men (Jaffee & Hyde, 2000).

Lifespan Development - A Psychological Perspective by Martha Lally and Suzanne Valentine-French is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development

• Reference work entry
• Cite this reference work entry

• Robert Walrath PsyD 3  

3405 Accesses

13 Altmetric

Lawrence Kohlberg’s theory of moral development conceptualizes the sequential cognitive and developmental process of moral reasoning in children.

Description

Kohlberg’s theory was developed by presenting ethical and moral dilemmas to children in a short story format, followed by questions to elicit their feelings and decisions about the character’s actions. After studying the responses, he concluded there are three levels of moral development, each with two stages, as described below.

Level I: Preconventional Morality

In this initial level, children make decisions based on external consequences to their behavior, without consideration of the feelings of others. This level is typical of elementary school aged children.

Stage 1: Punishment and Obedience Orientation

Decisions are rule based to avoid punishment. The physical consequences of an action determine if it is right or wrong.

Stage 2: Individualism, Instrumental Purpose, and Exchange

Decisions are based on meeting one’s...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Kohlberg, L., & Kramer, R. (1969). Continuities and discontinuities in childhood and adult moral development. Human Development, 12 , 83–120.

Article   Google Scholar  

Kohlberg, L. (1976). Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive-developmental approach. In T. Lickona (Ed.), Moral development and behavior . New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Google Scholar  

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Rivier College, 420 South Main Street, Nashua, NH, USA

Robert Walrath PsyD ( Associate Professor of Education )

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert Walrath PsyD .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Neurology, Learning and Behavior Center, 230 South 500 East, Suite 100, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84102, USA

Sam Goldstein Ph.D.

Department of Psychology MS 2C6, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, 22030, USA

Jack A. Naglieri Ph.D. ( Professor of Psychology ) ( Professor of Psychology )

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Walrath, R. (2011). Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development. In: Goldstein, S., Naglieri, J.A. (eds) Encyclopedia of Child Behavior and Development. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-79061-9_1595

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-79061-9_1595

Publisher Name : Springer, Boston, MA

Print ISBN : 978-0-387-77579-1

Online ISBN : 978-0-387-79061-9

eBook Packages : Behavioral Science

Share this entry

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development

zennie / Getty Images

• Archaeology

• Ph.D., Psychology, Fielding Graduate University
• M.A., Psychology, Fielding Graduate University
• B.A., Film Studies, Cornell University

Lawrence Kohlberg outlined one of the best-known theories addressing the development of morality in childhood. Kohlberg’s stages of moral development, which include three levels and six stages, expanded on and revised the ideas of Jean Piaget’s previous work on the subject.

Key Takeaways: Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development

• Lawrence Kohlberg was inspired by Jean Piaget’s work on moral judgment to create a stage theory of moral development in childhood.
• The theory includes three levels and six stages of moral thinking. Each level includes two stages. The levels are called preconventional morality, conventional morality, and postconventional morality.
• Since it was initially proposed, Kohlberg’s theory has been criticized for overemphasizing a Western male perspective on moral reasoning.

Jean Piaget's two-stage theory of moral judgment marked a divide between the way children younger than 10 and those 10 and older think about morality. While younger children looked at rules as fixed and based their moral judgments on consequences, older children’s perspectives were more flexible and their judgments were based on intentions.

However, intellectual development doesn’t end when Piaget’s stages of moral judgment ended, making it likely that moral development continued as well. Because of this, Kohlberg felt Piaget’s work was incomplete. He sought to study a range of children and adolescents in order to determine if there were stages that went beyond those proposed by Piaget.

Kohlberg’s Research Method

Kohlberg utilized Piaget’s method of interviewing children about moral dilemmas in his research. He would present each child with a series of such dilemmas and ask them their thoughts on each one to determine the reasoning behind their thinking.

For example, one of the moral dilemmas Kohlberg presented was the following:

“In Europe, a woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her… The druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to make. The sick woman’s husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about… 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 from it.’ So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man’s store to steal the drug for his wife.”

After explaining this dilemma to his participants, Kohlberg would ask, “Should the husband have done that?” He then continued with a series of additional questions that would help him understand why the child thought Heinz was right or wrong to do what he did. After collecting his data, Kohlberg classified the responses into stages of moral development.

Kohlberg interviewed 72 boys in suburban Chicago for his study. The boys were 10, 13, or 16 years old. Each interview was approximately two hours long and Kohlberg presented each participant with 10 moral dilemmas during that time.

Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development

Kohlberg’s research yielded three levels of moral development. Each level consisted of two stages, leading to six stages in total. People pass through each stage sequentially with the thinking at the new stage replacing the thinking at the previous stage. Not everyone reached the highest stages in Kohlberg's theory. In fact, Kohlberg believed that many didn’t move past his third and fourth stages.

Level 1: Preconventional Morality

At the lowest level of moral development individuals haven’t yet internalized a sense of morality. Moral standards are dictated by adults and the consequences of breaking the rules. Children nine years old and younger tend to fall into this category.

• Stage 1: Punishment and Obedience Orientation . Children believe the rules are fixed and must be obeyed to the letter. Morality is external to the self.
• Stage 2: Individualism and Exchange . Children begin to realize that the rules aren’t absolute. Different people have different perspectives and therefore there isn’t just one correct point of view.

Level 2: Conventional Morality

A majority of adolescents and adults fall into the middle level of conventional morality . At this level, people start to internalize moral standards but not necessarily to question them. These standards are based on the social norms of the groups a person is part of.

• Stage 3: Good Interpersonal Relationships . Morality arises from living up to the standards of a given group, such as one's family or community, and being a good group member.
• Stage 4: Maintaining the Social Order . The individual becomes more aware of the rules of society on a broader scale. As a result, they become concerned with obeying laws and maintaining the social order.

Level 3: Postconventional Morality

If individuals reach the highest level of moral development , they start to question if what they see around them is good. In this case, morality stems from self-defined principles. Kohlberg suggested that only 10-15% of the population was able to achieve this level because of the abstract reasoning it required.

• Stage 5: Social Contract and Individual Rights . Society should function as a social contract where the goal of each individual is to improve society as a whole. In this context, morality and individual rights like life and liberty may take precedence over specific laws.
• Stage 6: Universal Principles . People develop their own principles of morality even if they conflict with society’s laws. These principles must be applied to every individual equally.

Since Kohlberg initially proposed his theory, many criticisms have been leveled against it. One of the key issues other scholars take with the theory centers on the sample used to create it. Kohlberg focused on boys in a specific United States city. As a result, his theory has been accused of being biased towards men in Western cultures. Western individualist cultures may have different moral philosophies than other cultures. For example, individualist cultures emphasize personal rights and freedoms, while collectivist cultures emphasize what’s best for the community as a whole. Kohlberg’s theory does not take these cultural differences into account.

In addition, critics like Carol Gilligan have maintained that Kohlberg’s theory conflates morality with an understanding of rules and justice, while overlooking concerns such as compassion and care. Gilligan believed the emphasis on impartially judging conflicts between competing parties overlooked the female perspective on morality, which tended to be contextual and derived from an ethics of compassion and concern for other people.

Kohlberg’s methods were also criticized. The dilemmas he used weren’t always applicable to children at the age of 16 and under. For example, the Heinz dilemma presented above might not be relatable to children who had never been married. Had Kohlberg focused on dilemmas more reflective of his subjects' lives, his results may have been different. Also, Kohlberg never examined if moral reasoning actually reflected moral behavior. Therefore, it’s not clear if his subjects’ actions fell in line with their ability to think morally.

• Cherry, Kendra. “Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development.” Verywell Mind , 13 March 2019. https://www.verywellmind.com/kohlbergs-theory-of-moral-developmet-2795071
• Crain, William. Theories of Development: Concepts and Applications . 5th ed., Pearson Prentice Hall. 2005.
• Kohlberg, Lawrence. “The Development of Children’s Orientation Toward a Moral Order: I. Sequence in the Development of Moral Thought.” Vita Humana , vol. 6, no. 1-2, 1963, pp. 11-33. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1964-05739-001
• McLeod, Saul. “Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development.” Simply Psychology , 24 October 2013. https://www.simplypsychology.org/kohlberg.html
• Gilligan's Ethics of Care
• How Psychology Defines and Explains Deviant Behavior
• An Introduction to Erikson’s Stages of Psychosocial Development
• The Montessori Method and Sensitive Periods for Learning
• Freud: Id, Ego, and Superego Explained
• Emerging Adulthood: The "In-Between" Developmental Stage
• What Is Attachment Theory? Definition and Stages
• What Is Object Permanence?
• Oedipus Complex
• What Is the Zone of Proximal Development? Definition and Examples
• Anna Freud, Founder of Child Psychoanalysis
• The Stages of Adlerian Therapy
• 5 Psychology Studies That Will Make You Feel Good About Humanity
• Information Processing Theory: Definition and Examples
• What Is Classical Conditioning?
• Dream Interpretation According to Psychology

Access your Commentary account.

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password via email.

• July/August 2024

The monthly magazine of opinion.

Essays on Moral Development, by Lawrence Kohlberg

Essays on Moral Development, Volume One: The Philosophy of Moral Development. by Lawrence Kohlberg. Harper & Row. 441 pp. $21.95.

Lawrence Kohlberg is a Harvard psychologist who has been insisting for two decades that the study of children’s moral reasoning can guide society in distinguishing right from wrong. His work has been influential—it has supplied much of the impetus behind “moral education” courses that are appearing even in elementary schools. The present collection of essays is concerned with the moral and pedagogical consequences Kohlberg draws from his empirical findings about children, from cross-cultural studies, and from “longitudinal” studies of given subjects at different ages.

Kohlberg discerns six “stages of moral development.” The first four are uncontroversial, extending from the child’s obedience out of fear of punishment to the “my station and its duties” mentality attributed to J. Edgar Hoover. Stage 5, the “official morality of the U.S. Constitution,” recognizes obligations based on contract, plus basic rights like life and liberty. Stage 6—to which this book is a sustained hosannah—adds “justice,” interpreted as “rationally demonstrable universal ethical principles” based on “respect for the dignity of human beings as individuals.”

What distinguishes stage 6 from stage 5 is, in effect, the willingness to disobey laws that conflict with these principles. Kohlberg estimates the number of stage 6’s to be 5 percent of the American population, but his only sustained example of a 6 is Martin Luther King, Jr. Socrates sometimes rates a 6, but is elsewhere demoted to a “5B,” apparently for taking the laws of Athens too seriously. (Kohlberg repeatedly compares King with Socrates as a “moral teacher” executed by the society he made uncomfortable, as if James Earl Ray were a legally appointed executioner.) Lincoln and Gandhi are accorded 6’s in passing.

_____________

What makes a later stage a higher stage? Part of Kohlberg’s answer is the irreversibility of the sequence of stages: while most people become “fixed” at a stage lower than 6, no one ever retreats from a later stage to an earlier one. Ultimately, however, Kohlberg equates later with better because, he says, each stage resolves conflicts that remain unresolved at earlier stages. Thus, Kohlberg reports that his stage-5 respondents disagreed among themselves about whether a man may steal an expensive drug to save his wife’s life, whereas his stage-6 respondents unanimously approved of stealing the drug. Stage 6 is hence the summit of morality because it is the most “formally adequate,” “integrated” level of morality. Not only does it address every moral dilemma, but all who reach it will agree in their answers.

Kohlberg defends this patent absurdity—Socrates, King, Lincoln, and Gandhi would hardly have seen eye-to-eye about, say, homosexuality—by referring to John Rawls’s A Theory of Justice , “the newest great book of the liberal tradition,” which “systematically justifies” stage 6. In resting his own case on Rawls’s, Kohlberg is virtually asking the non-philosophical reader to accept his claims about stage 6 on faith. Still, the basic outlines of Kohlberg’s position are clear.

According to Rawls, when you truly apply the Golden Rule to a problem, you are not distracted by your own preferences or the natural human tendency to put your own interests first. The principles you come up with will be genuinely fair, or just, principles. Rawls’s basic idea is to devise a model situation in which people are really thinking along golden-rule lines. He has us picture rational egoists who have temporarily forgotten their actual places in society. In deliberating about principles that will govern their society, such self-regarding amnesiacs would imagine a principle’s impact on people of every status, and so not slight any person or position, however humble. And Rawls adds an extra twist: his egoists pay most heed to how the worst off will fare, since (for reasons Rawls never quite clarifies) each is obsessively afraid that he will turn out to be the worst off when the “veil of ignorance” lifts.

Kohlberg illustrates the supposedly computer-like operation of this “method of musical chairs” with the issue of capital punishment. Rawls’s model people would reject it, he says, because, while each recognizes the deterrent advantages of capital punishment, each thinks, “what if I were a murderer?” Each then realizes that the murderer would not want to be executed, and hence renounces capital punishment. Lest the reader accuse me of imputing to Kohlberg a position too preposterous for anyone to maintain, here are his own words: If we “assess the death penalty from the point of view of someone who takes into account the possibility of being a capital offender himself [we see that] the capital offender, obviously, would claim that he should be allowed to remain alive. . . . In short, at stage 6 the rational capital offender’s claim to life would be given priority over the claim of maximal protection from crime asserted by the representative ordinary citizen.”

Something has gone wrong. Kohlberg’s magical argument against capital punishment really works against any punishment; presumably he would repudiate parking tickets for according double-parkers insufficient respect. Kohlberg has apparently confused what one would want in a difficult situation with what one would claim he should be allowed to have. Were I a murderer in the electric chair I would hope for a pardon, a power failure, or anything else that would save me, but I would hardly suppose I had a “rational claim” to a right to live that offset the claims of innocents saved by my execution.

This confusion between what people would be willing to do and what they would claim a right to do skews Kohlberg’s understanding of the drug-stealing case, which he sees as a collision between “capitalist morality” and the “sacredness of life.” While it is true that I would stick at almost nothing to save my wife’s life, I would never claim a right on my part or my wife’s to do what I would do. Nor would I do those things to save a stranger, even though, on Kohlberg’s view, the issue involves a generalized right to life the stranger shares with my wife. (I think my attitude makes me a 3.)

Actually, far from resolving every hard problem, “equal respect under universal principles of justice” is an empty truism. Should Churchill warn Coventry about the planned Nazi bombing or remain silent to protect the secret that the British had cracked the Enigma code? Can British counterespionage frame an honorable U-boat captain to damage German morale? Any choice dooms someone, and avoiding the problem (“I don’t want anybody’s blood on my hands”) amounts to choosing to spare the captain and risk extra Allied lives. Whatever the solutions to such dilemmas, the incantation of “equal respect for everyone” will not reveal them.

Indeed, it quickly becomes clear that Kohlberg is just making up stage 6 as he goes along. He scales the peak of arbitrariness when he counsels a stage-6 wife dying of cancer to concur in her own mercy killing: “If the wife puts herself in the husband’s place, the grief she anticipates about her own death is more than matched by the grief a husband should feel at her pain.” Kohlberg does not disclose how to determine the pain the wife will feel, the pain the husband “should” feel, or, indeed, what has become of the “sacredness of life.”

In fact, there is no stage 6. Kohlberg fudges this by combining stages 5 and 6 in his statistics. Astonishingly, he admits in a candid paragraph that

our empirical findings do not clearly delineate a sixth stage. . . . None of our longitudinal subjects have reached the highest stage. Our examples of stage 6 come either from historical figures [conveniently unavailable for answering questionnaires] or from interviews with people who have extensive philosophic training. . . . Stage 6 is perhaps less a statement of an attained psychological reality than the specification of a direction in which, our theory claims, ethical development is moving.

This trumpery shows Kohlberg’s program of “moral education” for the instrument of propaganda it really is. Kohlberg’s proposal begins modestly enough, with Dewey’s insight that children learn best when challenged by problems that strain their current concepts. To this Kohlberg adds Piaget’s discovery that certain key concepts are learned only in a definite order of maturation. What results is a general educational strategy of helping children through natural cognitive stages by posing stimulating problems. Kohlberg now applies this to morals: since a child is disposed to pass through the levels of morality anyway, the teacher should boost him along with provocative tales about theft and murder.

Kohlberg dismisses the idea that schools, especially public schools, should leave ethics to others with the admonition that a “hidden moral curriculum”—of conformity—always lurks behind official postures of neutrality. But Kohlberg’s own pedagogy is anything but the Socratic midwife to a child’s autonomy. Those tales of mercy killings and the like, a “hidden moral curriculum” if there ever was one, are designed to push children along a specific policy agenda that has nothing to do with any natural bents, let alone with “rationally demonstrable universal ethical principles.”

Beneath the platitudes and the jargon, Kohlberg’s morality comes to a specious egalitarianism. It is hard to believe Kohlberg really thinks that any desire, however base or outrageous, deserves as much “respect”—i.e., satisfaction—as any other. But whatever “stage-6 morality” is, it is not synonymous with respect for persons as understood in the Kantian moral tradition Kohl-berg claims to be following. Kantian respect means allowing each person to choose his actions freely and to accept the consequences of his choices. Such respect has nothing to do with satisfying the desires of the autonomous beings who are said to deserve it.

After interviewing a captured Nazi, the hero of Nicholas Monsarrat’s autobiographical novel The Cruel Sea thinks to himself, “These people are not curable. We’ll just have to shoot them and hope for a better crop next time.” Hardly stage-6 thinking—which is why today I am alive to write this and you to read it.

The Diaspora Tragedy of Philip Roth

Joan Didion From the Couch

Brush Off Your Shakespeare

Scroll Down For the Next Article

Type and press enter

• More Networks

• Advanced Search
• All Categories
• Metaphysics and Epistemology
• Epistemology
• Metaphilosophy
• Metaphysics
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Religion
• Value Theory
• Applied Ethics
• Meta-Ethics
• Normative Ethics
• Philosophy of Gender, Race, and Sexuality
• Philosophy of Law
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Value Theory, Miscellaneous
• Science, Logic, and Mathematics
• Logic and Philosophy of Logic
• Philosophy of Biology
• Philosophy of Cognitive Science
• Philosophy of Computing and Information
• Philosophy of Mathematics
• Philosophy of Physical Science
• Philosophy of Social Science
• Philosophy of Probability
• General Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Science, Misc
• History of Western Philosophy
• Ancient Greek and Roman Philosophy
• Medieval and Renaissance Philosophy
• 17th/18th Century Philosophy
• 19th Century Philosophy
• 20th Century Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy, Misc
• Philosophical Traditions
• African/Africana Philosophy
• Asian Philosophy
• Continental Philosophy
• European Philosophy
• Philosophy of the Americas
• Philosophical Traditions, Miscellaneous
• Philosophy, Misc
• Philosophy, Introductions and Anthologies
• Philosophy, General Works
• Teaching Philosophy
• Philosophy, Miscellaneous
• Other Academic Areas
• Natural Sciences
• Social Sciences
• Cognitive Sciences
• Formal Sciences
• Arts and Humanities
• Professional Areas
• Other Academic Areas, Misc
• About PhilArchive
• Frequently Asked Questions
• OAI Handler
• Journal policies
• Code of conduct
• Create an account

The Philosophy of Moral Development: Moral Stages and the Idea of Justice

Archival history, reprint years.

• DOI: 10.1017/S0360966900024452
• Corpus ID: 146824774

Essays on Moral Development. Volume I: The Philosophy of Moral Development . By Lawrence Kohlberg. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1981. vii + 441 pages. $21.95.

• Published in HORIZONS A 1 September 1983