Lawrence Kohlberg: The man behind the glasses.




Fact or Fiction:

- By performing extremely well on tests, Kohlberg earned a bachelor's degree in Psychology from Chicago University in only one year's time. (1948)

-His dissertation--work which outlined his 6 stages of moral development--made him famous among his peers and landed him a job teaching at Harvard (1968)

-While working in Belize, Kohlberg contracted a "tropical disease." The disease caused him physical pain and depression. On January 19th, 1987 Kohlberg drowned himself in the Boston Harbor. It is unconfirmed, but widely reported that he commited suicide.


Links:

Moral Delimmas and cool Kolhberg facts:

INfo about Piaget's stages of development in relation to Kohlberg

Moral Development: A Review of the Theory

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gT_gxpyavag

Conventional Level (Conformity--the group)


3.Interpersonal concordance or "good boy--nice girl"

(Aim to please—follow whosoever marches in front of you) Morality is based on what others accept as good or bad. Stereotypes play an important role as do notions of conventionally “normal” behavior. Intent can be more important than the consequences of an action. Stage three moral reasoners aspire to be “nice.”

Ex: Johnny doesn't steal the cookie because his school teachers, his preacher, his grandparents, his brothers and his sisters all told him that it's not nice to steal cookies. Johnny wants to be just like everyone else plus he needs to pop his collar and gel his hair before class, so he has less time to covet the contents of the cookie jar.


4. Law and order

(Rules for the sake of Rules—follow the voice on the loudspeaker) At this stage the emphasis shifts from what everyone is doing to the rules on which a majority has agreed upon. A reasoner might deviate from what the majority does, but only because he/ she is conforming more... conforming to a higher accepted more true representation of what it means to be a “good boy or good girl.” The stage four rule follower is not a rogue, but rather a more traditional group member. He/she is one who holds true to the most fixed group morality—laws.

Ex: Johnny's brother's and sisters all steal cookies, but johnny knows that everyone agreed not to steal those cookies and the whole of society really looks down on cookie thieves; therefore Johnny does not steal the cookie. In his mind his actions or reasoning is most congruent with the majority opinion.


Postconventional Level (Principle--transcendence)


5. Social-contract, legalistic orientation

(Politics—reason for yourself within the accepted thought structures) Stage 5 de-emphasise the majority. Whereas Level 4 reasoners may believe that by following laws they conform to the majority opinion, level 5 reasoners reject majority rule morality and ascribe to the moral legalistic principles of only the most “expert” legalistic political philosophers. Philosophies like Utilitarianism and Social Contract theory prevail. There is an emphasis on procedure for determining what is to become law. Where as level 4 is static Level 5 reasoners are dynamic and focused on “Social Utility.” What's moral is what's best for the most people and is in keeping with the legal theories of the most respected political philosophers.

Ex: Johnny sees stealing the cookie from the jar as being wrong not simply because he knows that society disapproves of cookie thieves but also because he subscribes to the more Utilitarian view. In particular, he acknowledges that stealing the cookie might be initially gratifying, but ultimately would be against the interests of the greater good as others might starve or never be able to get a cookie if he steals one.Thus, it would not be in the best interests of the most people for him to steal the cookie and he refrains from doing so.

6. The universal-ethical principle orientation

(True Religion—the mystic sadu beneath the body tree) Stage Six moral reasoners disregard group opinion. They develop individualized world views based on reason and personal experiences From these world views general principles of morality develop. Stage six thinking is “abstract and ethical.”

Ex: Johnny does not steal the cookie because after thinking deeply and synthesizing from his own experiences and understandings Johnny has come to believe that one should never take an object belonging to someone else without sufficiently compensating that person for their loss. Looking at the cookie jar dilemma through this principled lens Johnny decides that taking the cookie would violate this simple principle and he therefore resolves not to steal the cookie from the cookie jar.


Commentary:

Criticisms: Gilligan says that Boys are different from Girls.
Connections:
Ervin Staub's Basic Human Needs:

Kohlberg's stages of moral reasoning may coincide with the fulfillment or frustration of Ervin Staub's six basic needs. Kohlberg's "preconventional" moral reasoning intuitively appears to bare a relation to Staub's first two needs, "Security" and "effectiveness and Control." The "conventional" stage of moral reasoning appears to bare a relationship to Stabu's 2rd and fourth needs, "Positive Identity" and "Positive Connection." Kohlberg's "postconventional" reasoning seems to relate well with Staub's higher needs, "comprehension of reality" and "Independence or Autonomy." Kohlberg's stage six moral reasoning, "the universal ethical principal orientation" bares an intuitive relationship with Staub's highest

Staub writes that, "certain needs are especially important during particular developmental phases or life periods." Staub suggests that while there is no hierarchy of needs, the needs may be more or less important depending on a person's developmental stage. He offers as an example that parents and security may be particularly important early in life, but that people may switch their need emphasis to connection and identity (stage 3 and 4 "conventional" reasoning) during adolescence.

If the status of a person's basic needs can effect his/her moral reasoning strategy then two things are suggested: 1. understanding the status of a person's needs may give insight into his/her level of moral reasoning and 2. both moral reasoning and Staub's basic needs may fit into a normative order, or a progression that is most common, ie people move from stage one reasoning to stage 6 reasoning as the fulfillment of their needs allows. This notion also suggests that Staub's needs may then be somewhat hierarchical.

But then again, where is the data on all of this? (Your thoughts? Plz add to the discussion)

Hindu Progression of Desires:


Historian and religious scholar, Huston Smith writes in his book, The World's Religions, of four things that some Hindus believe all people naturally want. These desires are similar to Staub's needs and they may bare a relationship to Kohlberg's stages of moral reasoning.

Most immediately the broadest number of people naturally want Pleasure and Worldly Success (wealth, fame, and power) and Duty (to do what their group expects of them). People who want pleasure may be likely to be "preconventional reasoners." People who want worldly success may be most likely to be "Preconventional-Conventional" moral reasoners and those who are enamored with duty may be "Conventional" reasoners.

Pleasure seekers may strive to fulfill Staub's "security" and "effectiveness and control."

[Explanation: If pleasure is the opposite of harm and security is to be free from harm then security is a type of pleasure. "Effectiveness and control"-- defined as having the capacity to 1.) protect ourselves and 2. accomplish what we want-- is related to pleasure seeking in that harm is pain, the opposite of pleasure, and that to avoid harm is to seek pleasure. If we want to avoid harm then we want pleasure.]

Worldly success may align nicely with Staub's "positive identity" and "positive connections." Duty seekers may also be seeking to fulfill "positive connections" and "positive identity."

Smith suggests that people soon tire of pleasure and realize that worldly success and doing one's duty is finite and unfufilling. Enlightened humans next progress to the pursuit of "infinite being," "knowledge"and "joy" --"a feeling tone that is opposite of frustration, futility, and boredom." These desires may be antecedents to Kohlberg's stage 5 and 6 "postconventional" moral reasoning.

Smith continues by outlining Four life stages for the Hindu. The four life stages coincide nicely with Kohlberg's stages of moral reasoning. Smith convincingly relates the Hindu life stages to Hindu desires, which match closely to Staub's needs. This may support the view that the fulfillment status of Staub's needs relate to Kohlberg's stages of moral reasoning.

Four stages of life range on a scale from Self interest to Selflessness. The range mirrors Kohlberg's scale which begins with the avoidance of pleasure and ends with caring about others more than the self (transcendence).

The Hindu stages are: youth, householder, retiree and sannyasin. In youth and as a householder we seek pleasure, worldly success and duty. During this period people may be trying to fulfill Staub's first 4 needs (security, effectiveness, positive identity and positive connection.) Because these are the most salient needs people in these two stages of life may be most likely to reason via Kohlberg's Preconventional or Conventional reasoning.

The most interesting life stage is the fourth: sannyasin. This stage is very much like Staub's Transcendence of the self. The Sannyasin is one who "neither hates nor loves anything." (52) Such a state is the categorical denunciation of the self. A stage 4 Hindu may follow Kohlberg's stage six moral reasoning.

Smith offers that Hindu's say, "do not flee from desire until desire turns from you." This notion echoes Staub's theory that "transcendence of the self" cannot happen unless our other more immediate needs are satisfied. The Hindu notion is the same: pursue what you feel you must, until your desires are no longer frustrated, whether they be fulfilled or simply recognized as unimportant or unnecessary.
But then again... Where's the data on all of this?


Gardner's Theory of Stories:


Suggestions for expansion of this topic:

compare to Kelman's “Compliance, Identification, and Internalization three processes of attitude change”
http://felix.richmond.edu/cgi-bin/Pscandoc.cgi?app=2&folder=14862&doc=1
and Raven's “Power and Leadership”
http://felix.richmond.edu/cgi-bin/Pscandoc.cgi?app=2&folder=14895&doc=1
also compare this to Hindu's progression of life values.
Insert references about how reasoners progress through these stages. What makes them move along. (cognitive dissonance theory) discomfort from conflicting beliefs etc.
Also compare this to Gardner's progression of story telling.
Perhaps this section could also suggest what types of leadership could most influence reasoners at different stages of reasoning and explore the limitations of impacting reasoners at these stages.