Kohlbergs Moral Reasoning Theory - Assignment Example

My moral compass is grounded upon Kohlberg’s Moral Reasoning Theory as it refers to a model where justice is the fundamental concept. Kohlberg’s model further explains that development should be hierarchical and split into three levels and six stages (Cottone, Drucker, and Javier, 2007). Cottone et. al. further explains that the first or pre-conventional level should be where the moral decisions are associated with physical consequences and ethics. Constituents of the relationship involving mutual exchange should be noted as being real and standing and interpretation of each individual’s need should be stated concretely and realistically. The middle or intermediate level should be focused on maintaining a social system where moral reasoning is guided by stereotypical notions of “natural” or “good” behavior and upholding the laws of the land regardless if they are perceived to be fair as they are based upon the pre-conventional level (Cottone et. al.).

The third level or post-conventional is focused upon moral judgments made in light of current society’s norms and laws with an emphasis upon advancing human rights and adjusting existing laws or social norms explain Cottone et. al.). My trump card is to hold on to my ideals based on Kohlberg’s Moral Reasoning and to deal fairly in all matters with the greatest good for all in mind and respect and uphold the laws of the land.

I base my choices on the belief that people are inherently good and should be given the chance to express his or her thoughts and concerns without negative societal repercussions as long as things are done within the laws of the land. An Evangelical University might support Gilligan’s Care Theory in that moral development occurs in stages and even small acts of the wrong build-up to the point where a large wrong will appear to become a norm for the individual (Jorgensen, 2006).

Evangelist students might take Gilligan’s Care theoretical approach and say that dealing with moral judgments is too intellectual and does not take into account the “heart” of morality (Jorgensen, 2006).