Lawrence Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development changed the way psychologists and parents thought about the development of their children. Kohlberg expanded on Piaget’s theory of only 2 stages, to three levels and six stages total. He worked with groups of young children by interviewing and researching their answers to questions. These questions arose from fictional scenarios of everyday problems to decipher a child’s moral reasoning (Kim, 2013). One of the most well-known moral dilemmas is “Heinz Steals the Drug”. In summary, children had to decide whether a man should break the law to save his wife or not.
Kohlberg did not so much care about the answers to the questions, but rather the reasoning behind them. After completing a self-interview and interview of two other individuals, I was able to see for myself the different levels of moral reasoning within a person based on Kohlberg’s Theory. When I first read the scenario to myself it seemed like a simple solution to a simple problem.
Heinz should save his wife. I did not realize the complexity of the situation until after having to state the reasoning behind my answer. I was astonished at the level of thought needed to answer efficiently.
I decided that the reason Heinz should save his wife is because he loves her. Although it is against the law to steal, in this situation Heinz has an obligation to save the person he loves or else he will be devastated by it for the rest of his life. In a different situation were the person is a stranger, Heinz has no duty to save the person, making it more responsible to obey the law. I believed that this was the best explanation to the situation, until my first interview. I then realized I was not as morally developed as I had thought.
The first person I interviewed was a female of age 38. She currently works as a research chemist for a small private company. I have known this woman for a while and was curious of her moral status. I was pleased with my choice in an interviewee because her answers surprised me. Within the first question asked I could tell our answers were going to be very different from one another. She responded quickly and confidently, proving that she is self–assured in her morality. This was much different reaction compared to my self-interview.
I was stumped by some questions and it took me awhile to decide the best answer. She believed Heinz should steal the medicine for his wife, like myself, but she had a very different explanation as to why. She stated “Heinz should save his wife because she is dying and he has the resources to save her. ” When it came to the other questions about different scenarios of the story, she answered the same exact way, “Even if he does not love her or she is a stranger or animal, he should save her because he has the resources to do so.
” She also believed that people do not have to obey the law if it is not within their morals. This contradicted my thoughts on law. I believe there is specific situations in which laws may be broken, but they should be followed as much as possible. After asking her all of the questions, I could tell that she was in the sixth stage of moral development. This is the highest stage and known as Universal Principles. This means that her morals are based upon universal ethical principles and abstract reasoning.
Even if they conflict with laws and rules, she follows her internalized principles of justice (Cherry, 2013). This is very different than my own stage as well as the next person I interviewed. Over the years of her life, her morals have grown and developed to a level where she does not take into account any other reasons for her decisions, other than her self-morals. I believe her age as well as life experiences have caused her to raise to this highest level. The second interview I chose to do was with a gentleman of the same age as myself.
He is 19 years old and also a student. I chose this particular person due to the fact that we share the same age and occupation. I was curious to see whether gender made a difference in moral competency. Within the first three questions I knew he was on the same track as me and, in this case, gender did not make a difference. Almost all of his answers were parallel to mine as well as his reasoning. In summary, he believed that if you love someone you should do everything to save them. If not, then it is not your duty.
After interviewing a stage six of moral development, it was easy to see that he nor I were fully morally developed. Every answer was driven by selfish reasoning. Also, this man stated that the law should try to be followed as closely as possible. There are only certain situations when the law should be broken. This proves that we are both in stage 5 of moral development. This stage is called Social Contract and Individual Rights. People of this stage take into account of differing values, opinions and beliefs. They believe law and order is necessary, but members of the society must agree on these standards.
People of this stage also believe laws can be broken for necessary reasons and it does not make the action morally wrong (Cherry, 2013). At the stage of young adulthood, we both have not had enough life experiences to become fully morally developed. Using morals in real life situations helps to build experience and change the way one looks at situations. I thoroughly enjoyed interviewing for this assignment. It was fascinating seeing real life levels of moral development and examining why different people think different ways.
I felt confident in the answers and explanations I gave in the self-interview, but could tell I am not fully evolved in the moral aspect. The questions became somewhat difficult to answer and made me think out of the box. When interviewing the other two examinees, I felt comfortable asking the questions, and became really curious to what their answers would be. Kohlberg’s approach to the Stages of Moral Development by using real life situation is an efficient way to categorize individuals. It is an important part to studying human development and how children gain moral reasoning.
