Kohlberg's theory of moral development

The cognitive development theory of moral judgment by Lawrence Kohlberg is based, among other things, on John Rawl's moral-philosophical theory of justice and represents a further development of Jean Piaget's theory of moral development. Conceptually, Kohlberg's theory is based on Jean Piaget's developmental model of cognitive development. Lawrence Kohlberg's theory of the development of moral consciousness in humans is based on his dissertation (1958), which was followed by a longitudinal study that ran for almost 25 years . Throughout his life, Kohlberg worked on his theory of the development of moral judgments, constantly revising and expanding it. The theory assumes that human moral consciousness develops gradually in the same order, whereby not all people reach the higher levels of moral consciousness.

Determination of moral judgments

With so-called “moral dilemmas” Kohlberg investigated the moral development of humans. The subjects were presented with ten hypothetical dilemmas . Through these fictional stories they were confronted with moral problems, for example the protagonists get into an inner conflict with norms and laws when the demands of an authority contradict the welfare of other people.

Probably the most common story is the Heinz dilemma , which Kohlberg and his colleagues used repeatedly to explain the evaluation system. The story is about a man named Heinz whose wife is terminally ill. The only pharmacist in town has developed a drug that could cure women. The pharmacist sells the drug for ten times the price it costs to make and is unwilling to sell Heinz the drug for less than the estimated price. Despite numerous efforts, Heinz does not manage to raise enough money to buy the drug. Desperate, Heinz breaks into the pharmacy and steals the medicine for his wife.

The subjects were then asked whether and why Heinz should steal the drug, which can be classified as worse - let someone die or steal it - whether Heinz should also steal the drug if he did not love his wife, whether one should also do it for you Friend or even a pet should steal the drug and whether a judge should punish Heinz for the theft.

Kohlberg's dilemmas are all about two contradicting, and therefore incompatible, moral norms. In relation to the Heinz example, it would be the value of life that contradicts theft. The dilemmas have a simple structure and an optimal solution can never be found. Heinz can never save his wife and at the same time please the pharmacist. It does not matter which solution is chosen by the test persons, there are always fatal consequences.

Kohlberg does not carry out a content analysis, but a structural analysis of the answers to the dilemmas. For Kohlberg, it is of no importance which alternative action is chosen (e.g. Heinz should steal the drug or not). Kohlberg conducts an analysis of the structure of the moral judgment, he examines the arguments or given reasons for the respective direction of decision. One of the main points of Kohlberg's theory can be seen very well in this analysis scheme: It does not differentiate between morally "good" and morally "bad" decisions in relation to the dilemma, since this would require a "good" or a "bad" morality, which does not exist in Kohlberg's worldview.

Kohlberg's theory - a cognitive development theory

Kohlberg calls his theory a cognitive development theory. In this context, the term “cognitive” must be understood as thinking and judging about moral problems. Kohlberg did not deal with affective aspects of moral development in his research. He assumes that moral judgment is based on cognitive development; So one must first be able to think logically before one can judge morally and act.

Basics

According to Kohlberg, every person goes through the stages of development of moral consciousness described below, regardless of the culture in which they grow up, always in the same order and without skipping individual stages. The levels of moral awareness correspond to different levels of a development of the cognitive processes with which a person answers moral conflicts and questions. The essential area in which the development takes place lies in the ability of people to put themselves in the shoes of other people (taking on perspectives ).

The levels of moral awareness

Criteria for development

In order to move from one level of moral awareness to another, a person must progress in three areas:

1. His social perspective has to expand, away from a purely egocentric perspective towards realizing the demands of other people in the community.
2. His moral self-determination must improve; he must learn to question and justify moral norms.
3. The rationale for the rules of his actions must improve. A pure egocentric justification for pleasure / displeasure gradually becomes more abstract towards a post-conventional justification for norms.

Three levels with two sub-levels each

Kohlberg distinguishes three main levels of moral judgment, each of which consists of two sub-levels:

Preconventional level

This level corresponds to the level of most children up to the age of nine, some adolescents and many juvenile and adult offenders. At this level the child experiences for the first time that there can be other perspectives besides their own, but the authority figures are still the role models.

1st stage - Orientation towards punishment and obedience: In the first stage these are not based on moral claims, but essentially on perceived power potentials. The rules set by authorities are followed to avoid punishment.

2nd stage - The instrumental-relativistic orientation: In the second stage children recognize the mutuality of human behavior. Acting rightly consists in satisfying one's own needs and occasionally those of others as a means ( instrumental ). Human relationships are understood to be comparable to the exchange relationship of the market. They orient their behavior towards this reciprocity, i.e. react cooperatively to cooperative behavior and take revenge for the suffering inflicted on them ( tit for tat / do ut des - "I give so that you give"; "As you me so I give you").

Conventional level

Most of the young people and adults can be assigned to this level.

3rd level - The interpersonal concordance or “good boy / nice girl” orientation: moral expectations of others are recognized. The respondent wants to meet the expectations of the caregivers and authorities ( good boy / nice girl ), not just out of fear of punishment. If he does not live up to expectations, he will also feel guilty. Correspondingly, he also places moral expectations on the behavior of others. It is also often argued on the basis of the associated intention ("He meant it well").

4th stage - Orientation towards law and order: Beyond the third stage, the test person recognizes the importance of moral norms for the functioning of society. Expectations not directed by caregivers towards the child are also recognized (general moral rules of society) and followed, as they are necessary for maintaining social order ( law and order ).

Intermediate or transition stage

4 1/2. Level: When evaluating a longitudinal study, it was found that high school graduates returned to level 2 moral judgments. The intermediate stage was then subsequently integrated into the theory.

In the transition period to adulthood, adolescents are typically in a transition phase. In order to break away from the conventional level of moral awareness, it is important to question moral norms and not blindly follow authorities. In the transition phase, people are not yet able to put the justification of norms on a new, intersubjective foundation; they are morally disoriented. People at this level behave according to their personal views and emotions. Their morality is rather arbitrary, and they consider terms such as “morally right” or “duty” to be relative. In the best case, they succeed in developing to the 5th level of moral awareness, but it can also be that they remain in the transition level or fall back to the 4th level. The intermediate stage is considered post-conventional, although moral judgments at this stage are not yet principled.

Post-conventional level

Only a minority of adults reach the post-conventional level, mostly after the age of 20.

5th stage - The legalistic orientation towards the social contract: Moral norms are now questioned and only viewed as binding if they are well founded. In the fifth level, people orient themselves towards the idea of ​​a social contract . Certain norms are accepted for reasons of justice or utility for all. Only about a quarter of all people reach this level.

6th level - Orientation towards the universal ethical principle: The sixth level is finally only reached by less than 5% of people. This leaves the still diffuse justification of standards of the fifth level. The moral justification is now based on the principle of interpersonal respect, the rational standpoint of morality. Correct action is brought into harmony with self-chosen ethical principles that appeal to universality and non-contradiction, whereby it is no longer a question of concrete moral rules but of abstract principles ( categorical imperative ). Conflicts should be resolved argumentatively with (at least intellectual) involvement of all those involved. This level is similar to the standard justification form of discourse ethics .

A level 7?

The actual stage model of Kohlberg goes up to the 6th stage. Kohlberg later suggested that there could be a 7th level in which moral judgments are based on transcendental grounds. This aspect was not systematically developed by Kohlberg; however, he assumes that very few people reach this stage. The level 7 individual is said to be filled with universal love, compassion, or holiness. Kohlberg quotes Jesus , Buddha and Gandhi as examples .

Test procedure

A frequently used test method for measuring the levels according to Kohlberg is the Defining Issues Test (DIT-2). The index thus determined shows the extent to which an individual prefers a post-conventional morality.

criticism

Kohlberg's theory found not only a large number of supporters but also a considerable number of critics. Kohlberg's confusing publication practice with an unmanageable number of publications is just as much accused of as alleged contradictions between the theory and the empirically obtained data. The revisions of the theory (see level 4 1/2) were also criticized with the argument that if there were inconsistencies between theory and empirical data, either the evaluation methods were changed or theory changes were made without fundamentally questioning them. Amoralists and decisionists criticize the fact that the developments of people at level 5 are viewed as progress, as they doubt the moral justifications that are considered correct at levels 5 and 6 . Virtue ethicists believe that morally mature personalities are characterized by the development of certain character traits (the virtues ) and not, for example, in a belief in this or that abstract theory from a misguided intellectual history ; according to them, moral maturity is habitual, not intellectual. Since Kohlberg's theory was limited to cognitive aspects, a “cognitive overhang” of his development theory was criticized.

From a feminist point of view, Kohlberg's graded theory of moral development was criticized for one-sidedly favoring a western-masculine approach and defining it as a binding norm. His studies were carried out exclusively with male subjects; accordingly, he was accused of using unrepresentative data. It is not uncommon for the evaluation of the responses of female test subjects to moral dilemmas according to Kohlberg's scheme to show that, on average, the male participants' moral judgment is inferior. Kohlberg's student Carol Gilligan then, stressed the need besides the considered as typical male justice morality ( "voice of justice"), the feminine care ethic ( "voice of care") recognize that rather the quality of the place of formal principles of justice relationship oriented and Feelings and social commitment come to the fore.

The psychologist Monika Keller criticized Kohlberg's definition of the first two levels: She found that children (here: nine-year-olds) judge actions as morally right or wrong, regardless of whether they are rewarded or punished. They felt bad when they couldn't keep a promise; this was attributed to their empathic anticipation. According to the study by Gertrud Nunner-Winkler (2005), 4- to 6-year-old children also knew and observed the moral prohibition of theft - based on norms and not sanctions.

Another aspect that Krebs and Denton (2005) viewed as critical is the low correlation between moral judgments and actions in moral contexts. They take the position that a person can make moral judgments that can be assigned to different levels of Kohlberg. According to the authors, the level at which the moral judgment is based depends on motives and the context. This pragmatic approach implies that moral judgments do not exclusively pursue the goal of creating justice, but primarily serve to achieve one's own goals. In addition, it is argued that moral judgments are often made after the action is taken in order to justify it. They conclude that fairness is of interest to the individual only as long as the person is not harmed.

See also

• Ego development
• Stage model of psychosocial development
• James W. Fowler

literature

• Lawrence Kohlberg: On the cognitive development of the child . Baden-Baden 1974, Suhrkamp Verlag
• Lawrence Kohlberg: The Psychology of Moral Development . Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1996, ISBN 3-518-28832-6 .
• Günter Becker: Kohlberg and his critics: The actuality of Kohlberg's moral psychology , Springer (VS), Wiesbaden 2011, ISBN 978-3-53193049-7
• Krebs, DL, Denton, K. (2005). Toward a more pragmatic approach to morality: a critical evaluation of Kohlberg's model. Psychological Review, 112 , 629-649. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.112.3.629

Web links

• Georg Lind: Content and structure of moral judgment. Theoretical, methodological and empirical studies on moral and democratic competence in students (PDF file; 2.62 MB)

Individual evidence

1. ^ JR Rest, D. Narvaez, SJ Thoma, MJ Bebeau: DIT2: Devising and Testing a Revised Instrument of Moral Judgment. Journal of Educational Psychology. Vol. 91, 1999, pp. 644-659. doi: 10.1037 / 0022-0663.91.4.644 .
2. ^ Siegfried Reuss and Günter Becker: Evaluation of the approach of Lawrence Kohlberg to the development and measurement of moral judgments. Immanent criticism and further development , Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin 1996
3. ↑ Mary Jeanne Larrabee (Ed.): An Ethic of Care: Feminist and Interdisciplinary Perspectives, Psychology Press (Routledge), London 1993, Chapter 1 (Introduction)
4. ↑ Monika Keller: Moral Sensitivity: Development in Friendship and Family. Weinheim: Beltz / PVU 1996.
5. ↑ Geetrud Nunner-Winkler, Marion Meyer-Nikele, Roris Wohlrab: Integration through morality: Moral motivation and civil virtues of young people. Wiesbaden; VS, 2006.
6. ↑ Kienbaum, Jutta, Schuhrke, Bettina: Developmental Psychology of the Child From Birth to the Age of 12, Verlag W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart, 2010, p. 192
7. ↑ APA PsycNet. Retrieved July 17, 2020 .