Contents
Lawrence Kohlberg is a world figure, and no serious textbook on child psychology is complete without a mention of his theory of moral development. Morality, to one degree or another, is inherent in any person, otherwise he is not a person at all. But to what extent? And what is this morality? How does an asocial infant get involved in human morality? In his theory of moral development, L. Kohlberg just expressed the answers to these and other related questions. And his hypothetical dilemmas are designed to diagnose the level of development of the moral consciousness of a person, equally as an adult, and a teenager, and a child.
According to Kohlberg, moral development has three successive levels, each of which includes two distinct stages. During these six stages there is a progressive change in the foundations of moral reasoning. In the early stages, the judgment is made based on some external force — the expected reward or punishment. In the very last, higher stages, judgment is already based on a personal, internal moral code and is practically not influenced by other people or social expectations. This moral code is above any law and social convention and may sometimes, due to exceptional circumstances, come into conflict with them.
Thus, Lawrence Kohlberg, following J. Piaget, came to the conclusion that rules, norms, laws are created by people on the basis of mutual agreement and that they can be changed if necessary. Therefore, an adult, having gone through all the stages of moral development, comes to the realization that there is nothing absolutely right or wrong in the world and that the morality of an act depends not so much on its consequences, but on the intentions of the person who performs it.
Instructions
Read (listen to) the following nine hypothetical dilemmas carefully and answer the questions provided. No dilemma contains an absolutely correct, flawless solution — any option has its pros and cons. Pay close attention to the rationale for preferring your answer.
test material
Dilemma I. In Europe, a woman was dying from a special form of cancer. There was only one drug that the doctors thought could save her. It was a form of radium recently discovered by a pharmacist in the same city. Making the drug was expensive. But the pharmacist charged 10 times more. He paid $400 for the radium and quoted $4000 for a small dose of radium. The sick woman’s husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow money and used every legal means, but could only raise about $2000. He told the pharmacist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or take payment later. But the pharmacist said, «No, I have discovered a drug and I’m going to make good money on it, using all real means.» And Heinz decided to break into the pharmacy and steal the medicine.
1. Should Heinz Steal the Medicine? Why yes or no?
2. (The question is posed in order to reveal the subject’s moral type and should be considered optional). Is it good or bad for him to steal the medicine?
3. (The question is posed in order to reveal the subject’s moral type and should be considered optional). Why is it right or wrong?
4. Does Heinz have an obligation or obligation to steal the medicine? Why yes or no?
5. If Heinz didn’t love his wife, would he have to steal the medicine for her? (If the subject does not approve of stealing, ask: will there be a difference in his act if he loves or does not love his wife?) Why yes or no?
6. Suppose that it is not his wife who dies, but a stranger. Should Heinz steal the cure for someone else? Why yes or no?
7. (If the subject approves of stealing the drug for someone else). Let’s say it’s a pet he loves. Should Heinz steal to save his beloved animal? Why yes or no?
8. Is it important for people to do everything they can to save the life of another? Why yes or no?
9. Stealing is against the law. Is it morally wrong? Why yes or no?
10. In general, should people try to do everything they can to obey the law? Why yes or no?
11. (This question is included to reveal the subject’s orientation and should not be considered mandatory.) Reflecting on the dilemma again, what would you say is the most responsible thing to do in this situation to Heinz? Why?
(Questions 1 and 2 of Dilemma I are optional. If you don’t want to use them, read Dilemma II and its sequel and start with question 3).
Dilemma II. Heinz went to the pharmacy. He stole the medicine and gave it to his wife. The next day there was a report in the newspapers about the robbery. Police officer Mr. Brown, who knew Heinz, read the message. He remembered that he had seen Heinz run from the pharmacy and realized that Heinz had done it. The policeman hesitated whether he should report it.
1. Should Officer Brown report that Heinz committed the theft? Why yes or no?
2. Suppose Officer Brown is a close friend of Heinz. Should he then file a report on it? Why yes or no?
Continued: Officer Brown reported on Heinz. Heinz was arrested and put on trial. The jury was chosen. The job of a jury is to determine whether or not a person is guilty of a crime. The jury finds Heinz guilty. The judge’s job is to pass judgment.
3. Should the judge give Heinz a specific punishment or release him? Why is this the best?
4. From the standpoint of society, should people who break the law be punished? Why yes or no? How does this apply to what the judge has to decide?
5. Heinz did what his conscience told him when he stole the medicine. Should the violator of the law be punished if he acted out of conscience? Why yes or no?
6. (This question is posed in order to reveal the orientation of the subject and can be considered optional). Consider a dilemma: what do you think is the most important thing a judge should do? Why?
Dilemma III. Joe is a 14-year-old boy who really wanted to go to camp. His father promised him that he would be able to go if he earned the money himself. Joe worked hard and saved up the $40 he needed to go to camp, and a little more on top of that. But just before the trip, my father changed his mind. Some of his friends decided to go fishing, and his father did not have enough money. He told Joe to give him the accumulated money. Joe didn’t want to give up the trip to the camp and was going to refuse his father.
(Questions 1-6 are included to elicit the subject’s ethical belief system and should not be considered mandatory.)
1. Does the father have the right to persuade Joe to give him money? Why yes or no?
2. Does giving money mean that the son is good? Why?
3. Is it important in this situation that Joe made the money himself? Why?
4. Father promised Joe that he would be able to go to the camp if he would earn money himself. Is the father’s promise the most important thing in this situation? Why?
5. In general, why should a promise be kept?
6. Is it important to keep a promise to someone you don’t know well and probably won’t see again? Why?
7. What is the most important thing a father should be concerned about in his relationship to his son? Why is this the most important?
8. In general, what should be the authority of the father in relation to the son? Why?
9. What is the most important thing a son should be concerned about in his relationship with his father? Why is this the most important thing?
10. (The next question is aimed at revealing the orientation of the subject and should be considered optional). What do you think is the most important thing Joe should do in this situation? Why?
Dilemma IV. One woman had a very severe form of cancer for which there was no cure. Dr. Jefferson knew she had 6 months to live. She was in terrible pain, but she was so weak that a sufficient dose of morphine would have allowed her to die sooner. She was even delirious, but during calm periods she asked the doctor to give her enough morphine to kill her. Although Dr. Jefferson knows that mercy killing is against the law, he considers complying with her request.
1. Should Dr. Jefferson give her a drug that would kill her? Why?
2. (This question is aimed at identifying the moral type of the subject and is not mandatory). Is it right or wrong for him to give a woman a medicine that would make her die? Why is it right or wrong?
3. Should a woman have the right to make the final decision? Why yes or no?
4. The woman is married. Should her husband interfere in the decision? Why?
5. (The next question is optional). What should a good husband do in this situation? Why?
6. Does a person have a duty or an obligation to live when he does not want, but wants to commit suicide?
7. (The next question is optional). Does Dr. Jefferson have a duty or obligation to make medicine available to women? Why?
8. When a pet is severely injured and dies, it is killed to relieve the pain. Does the same thing apply here? Why?
9. It is against the law for a doctor to give a woman medicine. Is it also morally bad? Why?
10. In general, should people do everything they can to obey the law? Why? How does this apply to what Dr. Jefferson should have done?
11. (The next question is about moral orientation and is optional.) As you contemplate the dilemma, what would you say is the most important thing that Dr. Jefferson would do? Why?
Dilemma V. Dr. Jefferson committed a mercy killing. At this time, Dr. Rogers passed by. He knew the situation and tried to stop Dr. Jefferson, but the cure had already been given. Dr. Rogers hesitated whether he should report Dr. Jefferson.
1. (This question is optional). Should Dr. Rogers report Dr. Jefferson? Why?
Continued: Dr. Rogers reported on Dr. Jefferson. Dr. Jefferson is put on trial. Jury elected. The job of a jury is to determine whether a person is guilty or not guilty of a crime. The jury finds that Dr. Jefferson is guilty. The judge must pass judgment.
2. Should the judge punish Dr. Jefferson or release him? Why do you think this is the best answer?
3. Think in terms of society, should people who break the law be punished? Why yes or no? How does this apply to the referee’s decision?
4. The jury finds that Dr. Jefferson is legally guilty of murder. Is it fair or not for the judge to sentence him to death (according to the law possible punishment)? Why?
5. Is it right to always pass a death sentence? Why yes or no? Under what conditions should the death sentence be handed down, in your opinion? Why are these conditions important?
6. Dr. Jefferson did what his conscience told him to do when he gave the woman the medicine. Should the violator of the law be punished if he does not act according to his conscience? Why yes or no?
7. (The next question may be optional.) Considering the dilemma again, what would you define as the most responsible thing for a judge? Why?
(Questions 8-13 reveal the subject’s ethical belief system and are optional.)
8. What does the word conscience mean to you? If you were Dr. Jefferson, what would your conscience tell you when making a decision?
9. Dr. Jefferson must make a moral decision. Should it be based on feeling, or only on reasoning about what is right and wrong? In general, what makes a problem moral, or what does the word «morality» mean to you?
10. If Dr. Jefferson is thinking about what is really right, there must be some right answer. Is there really some correct solution to moral problems like those of Dr. Jefferson, or where everyone’s opinion is equally correct? Why?
11. How can you know that you have reached a just moral decision? Is there a way of thinking or a method by which a good or adequate solution can be reached?
12. Most people believe that thinking and reasoning in science can lead to the right answer. Is the same true for moral decisions, or is there a difference?
Dilemma VI. Judy is a 12 year old girl. Her mother promised her that she would be able to go to a special rock concert in their city if she saved money for a ticket by working as a babysitter and saving a little on breakfast. She saved $15 for a ticket, plus an extra $5. But the mother changed her mind and told Judy that she should spend the money on new clothes for school. Judy was disappointed and decided to go to the concert anyway. She bought a ticket and told her mother that she had only earned $5. On Wednesday she went to a performance and told her mother that she had spent the day with a friend. A week later, Judy told her older sister, Louise, that she had gone to the play and had lied to her mother. Louise considered telling her mother what Judy had done.
1. Should Louise tell her mother that Judy lied about the money, or keep quiet? Why?
2. Hesitating whether to tell or not, Louise thinks that Judy is her sister. Should this influence Judy’s decision? Why yes or no?
3. (This moral type question is optional). Does such a story have a connection with the position of a good daughter? Why?
4. Does the fact that Judy made the money herself matter in this situation? Why?
5. Mother promised Judy that she could go to the concert if she earned money herself. Is the mother’s promise the most important thing in this situation? Why yes or no?
6. Why should a promise be kept at all?
7. Is it important to keep a promise to someone you don’t know well and probably won’t see again? Why?
8. What is the most important thing a mother should take care of in her relationship with her daughter? Why is this the most important thing?
9. In general, what should be the authority of a mother for a daughter? Why?
10. What is the most important thing you think a daughter should take care of in relation to her mother? Why is this thing important?
(The next question is optional).
11. Reflecting on the dilemma again, what would you say is the most responsible thing to do in this situation to Louise? Why?
Dilemma VII. In Korea, the crew of sailors retreated when meeting with superior enemy forces. The crew crossed the bridge over the river, but the enemy was still mostly on the other side. If someone went to the bridge and blew it up, then the rest of the team, having the time advantage, could probably run away. But the man who stayed behind to blow up the bridge couldn’t get away alive. The captain himself is the man who knows best how to lead a retreat. He called for volunteers, but there were none. If he goes on his own, the people probably won’t return safely, he’s the only one who knows how to lead a retreat.
1. Should the captain have ordered the man to go on the mission, or should he have gone on his own? Why?
2. Should a captain send a man (or even use a lottery) when that means sending him to his death? Why?
3. Should the captain have gone himself when that means the people probably won’t make it back safely? Why?
4. Does the captain have the right to order a man if he thinks it is the best move? Why?
5. Does the person who received the order have a duty or obligation to go? Why?
6. What makes it necessary to save or protect human life? Why is it important? How does this apply to what the captain should do?
7. (The next question is optional). Rethinking the dilemma, what would you say is the most important thing for a captain? Why?
Dilemma VIII. In one country in Europe, a poor man named Valjean could not find a job, neither his sister nor his brother could. Having no money, he stole bread and the medicine they needed. He was captured and sentenced to 6 years in prison. After two years, he ran away and began to live in a new place under a different name. He saved money and gradually built a big factory, paid his workers the highest wages, and gave most of his profits to a hospital for people who could not get good medical care. Twenty years passed, and one sailor recognized the owner of the factory, Valjean, as an escaped convict whom the police were looking for in his hometown.
1. Should the sailor have reported Valjean to the police? Why?
2. Does the citizen have a duty or obligation to report a fugitive to the authorities? Why?
3. Suppose Valjean were a close friend of a sailor? Should he then report Valjean?
4. If Valjean was reported and brought to trial, should the judge send him back to hard labor or release him? Why?
5. Think, from the point of view of society, should people who break the law be punished? Why? How does this apply to what the judge should do?
6. Valjean did what his conscience told him when he stole bread and medicine. Should the violator of the law be punished if he does not act according to his conscience? Why?
7. (This question is optional). Revisiting the dilemma, what would you say is the most responsible thing a sailor should do? Why?
(Questions 8-12 deal with the subject’s ethical belief system and are not necessary for determining the moral stage.)
8. What does the word conscience mean to you? If you were Valjean, how would your conscience participate in the decision?
9. Valjean must make a moral decision. Should a moral decision be based on a feeling or inference about right and wrong?
10. Is Valjean’s problem a moral problem? Why? In general, what makes a problem moral and what does the word morality mean to you?
11. If Valjean is going to decide what needs to be done by thinking about what is really just, there must be some answer, a right decision. Is there really some correct solution to moral problems like Valjean’s dilemma, or when people disagree with each other, everyone’s opinion is equally valid? Why?
12. How will you know that you have reached a good moral decision? Is there a way of thinking or a method by which a person can arrive at a good or adequate solution?
13. Most people believe that inference or reasoning in science can lead to the correct answer. Is this true for moral decisions, or are they different?
Dilemma IX. Two young men, brothers, got into a difficult situation. They secretly left the city and needed money. Carl, the elder, broke into the store and stole a thousand dollars. Bob, the youngest, went to a retired old man who was known to help people in the city. He told this man that he was very ill and needed a thousand dollars to pay for the operation. Bob asked the man for money and promised that he would give it back when he got better. In fact, Bob was not sick at all and had no intention of returning the money. Although the old man did not know Bob well, he gave him money. So Bob and Carl fled town, each with a thousand dollars.
1. Which is worse: stealing like Carl or cheating like Bob? Why is it worse?
2. What do you think is the worst thing about cheating on an old person? Why is this the worst?
3. In general, why should a promise be kept?
4. Is it important to keep a promise to someone you don’t know well or will never see again? Why yes or no?
5. Why shouldn’t you steal from a store?
6. What is the value or importance of property rights?
7. Should people do everything they can to obey the law? Why yes or no?
8. (The following question is intended to reveal the subject’s orientation and should not be considered mandatory.) Was the old man irresponsible in lending money to Bob? Why yes or no?
Lawrence Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development. Interpreting the results of the Kohlberg test based on the stage of development of moral judgment
Lawrence Kohlberg identifies three main levels of development of moral judgments: preconventional, conventional and postconventional.
preconventional level is characterized by egocentricity of moral judgments. Actions are judged primarily on the principle of benefit and on their physical consequences. Good is what gives pleasure (for example, approval); bad is that which causes displeasure (for example, punishment).
Conventional the level of development of moral judgments is achieved when the child accepts the assessments of his reference group: family, class, religious community … The moral norms of this group are assimilated and observed uncritically, as the ultimate truth. Acting in accordance with the rules adopted by the group, you become «good.» These rules can also be universal, as, for example, the biblical commandments. But they are not developed by the person himself as a result of his free choice, but are accepted as external constraints or as the norm of the community with which the person identifies himself.
Postconventional the level of development of moral judgments is rare even in adults. As already mentioned, its achievement is possible from the moment of the appearance of hypothetical-deductive thinking (the highest stage in the development of the intellect, according to J. Piaget). This is the level of development of personal moral principles, which may differ from the norms of the reference group, but at the same time have a universal breadth and universality. At this stage, we are talking about the search for universal foundations of morality.
In each of these levels of development, L. Kolberg identified several stages. The achievement of each of them is possible, according to the author, only in a given sequence. But L. Kohlberg does not make a rigid binding of stages to age.
Stages of development of moral judgments according to L. Kohlberg:
Mature moral reasoning occurs when children freely express their opinions on moral issues put forward by elders, and elders, in turn, demonstrate to children a higher level of moral reasoning.
Moreover, a high level of moral reasoning is likely to induce moral behavior. Although this point seems to be rather controversial. According to many of Kohlberg’s critics, there is a big difference between moral judgment and moral behavior. No matter how high our moral principles are, we are not always up to them when it comes time to act in accordance with them.
And this criticism of Kohlberg does not end there. He himself was aware that the positions put forward by him were not perfect, and he tried to introduce possible corrections into his theory.