Moral Development Theory - Essay Example

Moral Development Theory Moral Development Theory In one of the women’s prison in South America, Mary, who was one of the prisoners, suffered sex abuse from a prison warder named John. The abuse was accompanied with promises of a better life in prison; John physically abused Mary whenever she tried to resist his advances. This continued for several months, out of frustration she resolved to put an end to this abuse. Mary secretly sneaked a penknife into her cell for self-defense. When John attempted to rape her, she did not hesitate to use it; as a result, John was badly injured and hospitalized.

John’s attack attracted a lot of media attention and Ronald, who was in charge of the warders welfare, ordered a raid in the prison cells in search of weapons and in the process some of the inmates were badly injured and some succumbed to their injuries. This move was applauded by most people as they believed this would make criminals learn to behave well and respect the prison warders. Kohlberg’s first stage of moral thought is obedience and punishment orientation, where a set of rules handed over by the authority should be obeyed unquestionably and failure to obey leads to punishment.

This reasoning is evident in how Mary kept quiet for a prolonged period, while John took advantage of her for fear of the consequences. As an inmate, Mary was expected to obey the prison warder. In the second stage of thought, that is individualism and exchange, Mary may have put up with John’s abuse hoping that he will either put in a good word for her, which may facilitate state pardon or favor her in some way hoping her life would be bearable in prison.Stage three of moral thought is good interpersonal relationship; this is where one lives to the expectations of the family and community.

Ronald who was in charge of the warders, on hearing the news that an inmate, had assaulted one of the warders even without trying to find out why, he opted to raid the prison cells in search of weapons in order to fulfill the expectations of the community. His action showed true concern for the prison warders who were at risk of being attacked by the inmates. Stage four of moral development, deals more with the social order (Crain, 1985). This has to do with the societal perspective or societal expectations.

This is revealed when Ronald became brutal with the inmates in order to protect his image and that of the other prison warders; as he was expected to do by the society. The fifth stage of moral reasoning is about social contracts and individual rights. This reasoning is where morality sometimes takes priority over some laws. According to Mary, despite the fact that she was expected to obey the warder, she knew, she too had rights to resist the abuse and she felt justified for attacking John because of violating her, though this did not go down well with the law enforcers and even the community at large.

They did not bother to find out what was the reason behind the attack. They instead acted blindly by brutally beating the inmates in order to intimidate them as they searched for the dangerous weapons in their custody (Crain, 1985). The sixth stage of moral thought is the universal principle. This is where an individual’s right needs to be protected; disputes need to be settled in a democratic manner. In Mary’s case, she had a right to resist being abused, as she is human and sexual abuse is a crime against humanity; as much as she was a prisoner, she is human and her rights were supposed to be respected.

John, on the other hand, acted irresponsibly as he was taking advantage of the fact that, Mary is an inmate and it was unlikely that, anyone would ever listen to her grievances; she therefore, felt justified to attack John. On the other hand, on hearing the news of attack Ronald ordered a raid to search for weapons because he felt that there may be more warders at risk of being killed or hurt by the inmates. This decision had a lapse in judgment as it focused more on the attacked prison warder but did not protect the human rights of Mary and other inmates.

ReferencesCrain, W. C. (1985). Theories of development, New Jersey: Prentice – Hall.