I looked about the net for info regarding something my Mother showed me when she was taking a Psychology course in University regarding moral behaviour. A man by the name of Lawrence Kohlberg came up with a theory, which became known as Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development.
Kohlberg’s theory states that there are 6 stages of moral reasoning that determine
the ethical behaviour of an individual. He believed that as you grow and learn, you have the potential to grow morally throughout your life.
There are three stages that the 6 levels are split between. Levels 1 and 2 are in the Pre-Conventional stage.
The Pre-Conventional stage is most common with children, though many adults never rise above this stage.
Level 1, you behave because if you don’t you get punished. Fear of punishment is at the bottom end of the morality scale.
Level 2, you behave because you know that you will be rewarded for it.
The Conventional Stage is where most adults end up, and cover the 3rd and 4th stages of moral development.
Level 3, you do good things because you see that there is value to the inevitable approval of others you know.
Level 4, you behave because that is the law. This type of person believes that laws are an important part of keeping society in order, and to disobey them is morally wrong.
The Post-Conventional stage covers levels 5 and 6. I should point out that Kohlberg found very few people rose to this level, and that he had a hard time trying to find anyone who genuinely fit the level 6 definition.
Level 5, you do good things because you recognize that you are an individual part of a greater society and that a person’s views must become part of their moral reasoning. This kind of person sees laws as important, but as only guidelines, and that laws should promote prosperity for all.
Level 6, you do good things because they are right. You help people not because you want to avoid punishment, get a reward or peer approval, it doesn ’t even matter if you like the person you’re helping. You do it because it’s right. This person sees laws not only as guidelines, but that one should ignore ones that are unjust, and that just laws are ones that benefit everyone, not just a select few.
So how do we fare in such a scale? Most of us fall into the Conventional reasoning of levels 3 and 4. You may agree with levels 5 and 6 and think you fit there, but
honestly look back in your life and think about the choices you’ve made and the actions attributed to you. You’d be hard pressed to find anyone in level 6.
Why did I bring this up? Well, let’s face it, the world is a pretty ugly place sometimes, with bad people doing bad things, and good people doing nothing; Kohlberg’s Levels of Moral Reasoning is something that stuck with me. I think it could be a way of bettering the world, not through more religion, more politics, more capitalism or communism, or any of the million ism’s. If we can nudge people a bit higher up the Moral Reasoning scale through education, then maybe things would improve. It’s at the very least a way of measuring where we are, morally as a society, and where we need to end up if we are to survive.
4 comments:
I remember learning about Kholberg in a psychology class. As I recall, he was then very well-respected, and as far as know, is still today.
Hope things are going well for you, Keith. Things are fabulous but very busy over here.
It has been decided, in more recent years, that this theory does not fit the thinking patterns of women. Years ago, the theory was used as a way to prove that women were morally inferior to men and of course, as we all know, not as smart either.
Good for debating though. We all need to try to be better people.
That may be due to societal realities that many women face on a daily basis. A lot of women will get stoned, beaten or at the very lease, belittled and ridiculed for voicing their opinions, making it very hard for a woman to step forward and be different, and thus encouraging women to "play along, to get along." If you check the list, that's level 3 thinking, and pretty low on the scale.
I also question how the women were tested, and the nature of the questions, because in my experience, there is no gender bias in the theory, most people would test low on the scale regardless of their sex. I think the bias of the testers may have had an impact, especially considering the date in which these tests would have been done.
If you really think about it, most things in our society encourage us to stay low on the moral reasoning scale, whether it's religion, the kind of capitalism that is practised today, or the way schools are run. It's all about telling people to shut up, don't question, and be a good consumer.
It's no wonder the world's a mess.
No women were tested in this research, the moral dilemmas Kohlberg presented and his participants were all male, which is why the theory is charged with gender bias.
Post a Comment