The Relevance of Kohlbergs Theory of Moral Development - Essay Example

Asses The Relevance of Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development of [Word Count] Could be bassed on inclusion , corporal punishment Introduction Educationists and psychologists have developed various theories to explain the moral development people undergo from childhood to adulthood. These theories are important in promoting learning, growth and moral development of learners. They are also used to design, develop and implement punishment and inclusion strategies in education. These theories have different principles and assumptions, implying different efficiency, effectiveness and relevance to different situations and groups in learning environment. Of greatest importance to educationists, especially teachers, is the relevance of these theories without which they cannot be useful in education (Hedl et al., 2005). An example of moral development theories is the Lawrence Kohlberg theory of moral development. This paper discusses the relevance of Kohlberg’s theory of development, especially to children, which is the focus age group for educationists and other scholars, regarding inclusion and punishment (Hedl et al., 2005). Lawrence Kohlberg, a moral philosopher of great renown, was also and student of child development. He was director of Harvards Center for Moral Education where he worked extensively on the moral development of children studying the development of their sense of right, wrong, and justice as they interact with others and grow. Clearly, this theory must be relevant in modern society, where children encounter inclusion challenges and situations that hamper their development, based on their perception of what is right, wrong and justifiable (Hedl et al., 2005). As Kohlberg observed, children grow and develop through certain stages of moral development until they reach adulthood. In fact, Kohlberg’s theory is similar to the theory proposed by Piaget for the stages of cognitive development. Through tests and observation of children, Kohlberg concluded and theorized that children, and all human beings for that matter, go through a sequence of steps without skipping any or retreating to a passed stage in their moral development (Rest et al., 1999). Thus, Lawrence Kohlberg’s theory of moral development concurs with Piagets theory of moral development in principle. However, Kohlberg was intent on developing his ideas on moral development further. He thus developed his own theory (Rest et al., 1999).   The Relevance of Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development Just like Piaget, Kohlberg’s theory was based on story-telling technique, laced with situations of moral dilemmas. The stories presented the audience with scenarios that required the making of choices between opposing forces, may be of justice to deserving individuals versus the interests or rights of someone in power (Rest et al., 1999). The most common of Kohlberg’s stories involves a man named Heinz whose wife was about to die of cancer. Although a drug had been discovered, the local chemist who discovered it was selling it at ten times the cost of production. Even with the help of his friends and family, Heinz could not raise the money while the chemist could not even accept installment payments. Heinz decided to break into the chemist’s shop and steal the drug. The relevance of this story and the subsequent Kohlberg theory of moral development are apparent given the many situations of dilemma that people face in society. For instance, is it acceptable to commit a crime such as stealing if it means saving the life of a loved one? Second, is it moral to go to great length to help only the loved ones? That is, if a stranger is in danger, do we do all things possible to help them? Is an immoral act committed to save a life acceptable? Kohlberg sought to answer these questions while developing his theory. His goal was to establish how people reason on issues of morality. Consequent to his studies, Kohlberg developed three distinct levels of moral reasoning, each with two sub stages. These stages can only occur in the order in which they are listed. The first stage is the pre-conventional morality, which is observed in children younger than nine years. This stage is quite relevant for children who still do not have a code of morality to follow. This stage is particularly relevant for educationists or teachers dealing with children in this age bracket (Rest et al., 1999). These children have their moral code shaped by the standards of adults (parents, teachers and other authorities). In addition, the people around these children pronounce and implement consequences or punishments if children break these codes or rules. Given that authority is outside the individual, reasoning is based on the physical consequences of actions. The relevance of this stage is observed in its effects of obedience and punishment orientation. Children behave well avoid being punished. If a person is punished, he or she knows he/she must have done something wrong (Woolfolk, 2012). This stage of pre-conventional morality is quite relevant in modern society for parents, older siblings, caretakers and teachers who have the duty to instill obedience in children. The second stage of pre-convention is individualism and exchange where children recognize that there are different right views for authorities and other people with whom they interact (Woolfolk, 2012). The second level of Kohlberg’s theory of moral development, the conventional morality, deals mostly with adolescents and adults; people start to internalize the moral standards of valued adult role models. This stage of the theory is quite important given the myriad challenges that adolescents and young adults encounter in life (Woolfolk, 2012). At this level of moral reasoning, adolescents and adults internalize authority but do not question it. Moreover, reasoning is based on the norms of the group to which the person belongs. This level of moral development is quite relevant in modern society in which people belong to specific social, economic, cultural or political groups, each with its norms, standards and values (Woolfolk, 2012). The third stage in the conventional level of reasoning is that of good interpersonal relationships. At this stage, a child or an individual becomes good or morally upright to be seen as being a good person by others. Thus, a person’s actions and answers are related to the approval of others. The fourth stage of this level of moral development is maintaining the social order. At this stage, an individual becomes aware of the wider rules of society (Kohlberg et al., 1983). Hence, a person’s judgment is concerned with obeying rules to uphold the law and to avoid guilt. Evidently, this stage is relevant since an individual requires making decisions or moral judgments that would not incriminate them or lead to feelings of guilt. The third level of the Kohlberg theory of moral development that is relevant to educationists, parents, authorities and individuals in modern society is the post-conventional morality. At this level, a person’s judgment is built on self-chosen principles (Kohlberg et al., 1983). Hence, moral reasoning is on individual’s rights and justice. This level is observed in between 10% and 15% of adults from the age of mid-30s. The fifth and the sixth stages of moral development fall in this level (Kohlberg et al., 1983). The fifth stage, which deals with the social contract and individual rights, is quite relevant in the education and other spheres of life. At this stage, a child or an individual becomes aware of the fact that whereas while rules or laws exist for the good of the majority, there are occasions in which rules may infringe or work against the interests or rights of an individual or a group. Just like in modern society, issues are not always clear-cut (Kohlberg et al., 1983). Instead, there are scenarios that present ambiguities, controversies, dilemmas and overlaps. There are situation in which an action that protects or preserves another’s life becomes more important than the fact that the action might have breached the law (Kohlberg et al., 1983). An example is the story of Heinz’s dilemma, mentioned earlier in this paper. Such situations are commonplace in society today. Hence, this stage of moral development, as Kohlberg envisages, is quite relevant. The sixth stage of moral development is ‘universal principles.’ At this stage, an individual has developed own set of moral guidelines (Kohlberg et al., 1983). These moral principles may or may not fit the law or apply to other peoples’ situations and principles. Examples of areas in which these principles are often applied are human rights, justice and equality. The relevance of this stage is that it requires an individual to be prepared to react and act to defend these principles even if such actions would oppose the principles the rest of society establishes (Kohlberg et al., 1983). Such an individual must also be prepared to pay the consequences of disapproval and or imprisonment from society. Criticism of the Relevance of Kohlberg’s Theory The Kohlberg theory has been evaluated and criticized as not being quite relevant as its proponents portray it. For instance, some critics identify problems with Kohlberg’s methods of arriving at his postulates. First, the dilemmas in the theory are artificial, thus lacking ecological validity. For instance, the story on Heinz and his ailing wife are not relevant to Kohlberg’s target audience who were children aged between 9 and 16. People in this age group have no experiences or feelings associated with marriage hence they cannot adequately respond to the questions that follow. Notably, Kohlberg’s samples, through which he made his conclusions on the theory were rather biased and reflected the opinion of males on morality. Thus, the theory is andocentric. Male morality is built on the abstract principles of law and justice, while female morality is often based on principles of compassion and care (Muhlberger, 2000). Thus, on the issue of gender bias, the theory is not entirely relevant. In fact, there is still significant level of gender debate going in the psychology about the relevance of this theory (Muhlberger, 2000). Regrettably, this debate continues to be ignored although it can result in large impact on results obtained through psychological research. The relevance of this theory is also challenged because the dilemmas used are hypothetical. In real situations, peoples’ course of action have real consequences, more so the quite unpleasant repercussions for committers of offenses (Muhlberger, 2000). That is, the subjects questioned may not have responded in the same way had they been in real situations. Thus, the fact that Kohlberg’s theory is heavily reliant on individual responses to artificial dilemmas makes the validity of the results, thus its relevance questionable. In other words, people could respond differently to real life situations than they do to artificial dilemmas presented in form of stories in a research (Waller, 2005). The relevance of the theory is also challenge on the precincts that there are no distinct stages to moral development and a person can fall back to earlier stages of reasoning such as conventional reasoning, all the way from stage 5 or 6 of post-conventional morality. In practical situations, it is seems peoples’ reasoning about right and wrong depends more on the immediate situation than on general rules (Waller, 2005). Thus, the evidence for distinct stages to moral development is weak. The theory has also been criticized for being culturally biased in promoting the stereotype that American values are superior to other cultures and societies (Waller, 2005). Kohlberg’s theory of moral development also does not take into account several factors that affect morality. These factors include acquired habits and whether people see situations as requiring their input or not. The other factors are the costs and benefits of a particular behaviour or action and the competing motive such as peer pressure and self-interest (Bee, 1994). In other terms, moral behavior depends not only on moral reasoning but also on social factors. The relevance of Kohlberg’s theory is also questioned because of its insinuation that justice is the most fundamental moral principle (Bee, 1994). Critics opine that the principle of caring for others is equally important. A key critic of the relevance of Kohlberg’s theory is Carol Gilligan. She argues that in Kohlberg’s theory, females are socialized differently from men while there are unaddressed concerns for the social dictates of morality such as nurturing and other serving behaviors (Gilligan, 1977). Consequent to these weaknesses of the theory, Gilligan proposes three levels of female development as focus on self to exclusion of the other and focus on other to exclusion, detriment of self and focus on all which includes self (Gilligan, 1977). Charles Bailey also criticizes the relevance of Kohlberg’s theory of moral development, arguing that the model is biased against conservative worldviews but has values that favor the liberal views. The theory also ignores content of reasoning, focusing only on the process (Gilligan, 1977). From the criticism, it is apparent that Kohlberg’s theory of moral development fails in the area of inclusion because it seems to favour males and the liberal worldviews. Conclusion Kohlberg’s theory shares certain principles with Jean Piaget’s theory of moral judgment or cognitive development. These two psychologists have their theories being used in modern education systems across the world. From Kohlberg’s findings, the traditional character education practices that are based on the notion that virtues and vices are the foundations of moral behavior have been rejected. Also rejected is the notion that moral character is composed of a collection of virtues such as honesty, kindness, patience, and strength. He proposed a better approach to child moral development that focuses on stages of moral development to affect behaviuor. Hence, students are engaged in classroom discussions on moral dilemmas, characterized by contradictions that correspond with the learners’ current levels of reasoning. He then developed the "just community" schools approach that seeks to support moral development by offering students the opportunity to participate in community discussions and achieve consensual resolutions of the actual moral issues students face as members of the school community. However, critics such as Carol Gilligan criticize the theory as lacking inclusiveness because it focuses more on male and liberal worldviews than it does on female and conservative worldviews. References Bee, H. L. (1994) Lifespan development. Harper Collins College Publishers. Colby, A., Kohlberg, L., Gibbs, J., & Lieberman, M. (1983). “A Longitudinal Study of Moral Judgment.” Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 48 (1-2, Serial No. 200). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gilligan, C. (1977). “In a Different Voice: Womens Conceptions of Self and of Morality.” Harvard Educational Review, 47(4), 481. Hedl, J. J., Glazer, H., and Chan, F. (2005) "Improving the Moral Reasoning of Allied Health Students". Journal of Allied Health, 34(2): 121. Muhlberger, P. (2000) "Moral Reasoning Effects on Political Participation." Political Psychology 21 (4): 667. Rest, J., Narvaez, D., Bebeau, M., and Thoma, S. (1999) "A Neo-Kohlbergian Approach: The DIT and Schema Theory." Educational Psychology Review, 11 (4): 291. Waller, B. (2005) Consider ethics: theory, readings, and contemporary issues. Pearson Education. Woolfolk, A. (2012). Educational psychology. Prentice Hall. Read More