See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/333828378

Theory of Moral Development

Chapter · June 2019

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_171-1

CITATION READS

1 43,879

3 authors:

Onurcan Yılmaz Hasan G. Bahçekapili

Kadir Has University Medipol University
69 PUBLICATIONS   728 CITATIONS    29 PUBLICATIONS   283 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Barış Sevi
University of Connecticut
33 PUBLICATIONS   541 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Barış Sevi on 17 June 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

T

Theory of Moral Development theory since it assumes that the main determinant
of moral judgment is rational thinking processes,
Onurcan Yilmaz1, Hasan G. Bahçekapili2 and even though it is thought that emotional or intui-
Barış Sevi3 tive processes are also involved – at least in part –
1
Kadir Has University, Istanbul, Turkey in moral judgment.
2
Dogus University, Istanbul, Turkey
3
Department of Psychology, West Virginia
University, Morgantown, WV, USA Kohlberg’s Three Levels

There are three levels (in a total of six stages) in

Synonyms Kohlberg’s theory of moral development in a
hierarchical structure. These three levels follow a
Kohlberg’s rationalistic theory; Moral stable sequence but qualitatively correspond to
development different types of moral reasoning. The first and
primary motivation of the first level
(pre-conventional morality), which includes the
Definition first two stages (obedience and punishment; indi-
vidual interests), is to avoid punishment and attain
Kohlberg’s theory of moral development explains pleasure. The individual at the first stage does not
how moral development takes place in human understand or care that other people can have
animals. similar wishes and desires besides their own
desires. Thus, the person in this stage acts in an
egoist manner. Then, in the second stage, the
Introduction person realizes that she can differentiate her
own desires from the wishes of other people and
The nature and the cognitive and emotional deter- the authority figures. At the second level
minants of moral judgment have been empirically (conventional morality), which includes the third
studied since the emergence of the science of and fourth stages (interpersonal; authority), the
psychology. Although one of the first systematic individual has a motivation that is concerned
theories began with Piaget (1965), the first sys- with mutual relations and expectations. The
tematic theory based on empirical research was main motivation of the individuals at this level is
introduced by Lawrence Kohlberg (1969). to be accepted and socially approved by others
Kohlberg’s theory is regarded as a rationalist and, in this context, to fulfill the orders of those
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019
T. K. Shackelford, V. A. Weekes-Shackelford (eds.), Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_171-1
2 Theory of Moral Development

who are hierarchically superior. Therefore, at this drug, because if he steals, he must be imprisoned
level, people define interpersonal relations (i.e., avoiding punishment), or Heinz should steal
through their place in society. At the last and because if his wife lives he will make Heinz a
third level (the post-conventional morality), the happier person (self-interest) is scored as having
individual develops an autonomous moral con- pre-conventional morality. Someone who states
ception, while in moral judgment she often refers that Heinz should not steal the drug because the
to a universal set of principles (such as justice and legal rules prohibit it or that Heinz should steal the
fairness). This stage corresponds to a universal set drug because his wife would expect him to be a
of moral principles that all people must follow, good husband is scored as having conventional
according to Kohlberg, and moral superiority is morality. Someone who says Heinz should steal
characterized as reaching this stage. The norma- the drug because everyone has the right to live or
tive moral superiority, which a rational human Heinz should not take the drug because others
being as in Kant’s categorical imperative must may need this medicine and everyone’s life is
achieve as a result of cognitive reasoning, is a equally important (i.e., universal human rights)
sense of universal justice. The individual in this is scored as having post-conventional morality.
stage sees morality as an end, not as a means. According to Kohlberg (1971), moral develop-
ment does not progress only with age (i.e., bio-
logical maturity); however, moral reasoning
should be related to cognitive reasoning capacity.
Assessing Morality
It has been found that the individuals who scored
as having post-conventional morality showed
Kohlberg scores people’s moral judgments based
higher performance in some tasks measuring cog-
on how they justify their moral judgments in terms
nitive reasoning (Kuhn et al. 1977). However, the
of these three levels (i.e., pre-conventional, con-
theory of Kohlberg’s moral development was later
ventional, and post-conventional moralities). For
criticized by different theoretical perspectives (cf.,
example, in the well-known Heinz dilemma, the
Haidt 2001). It is thought that empathy capacity,
participant reads the following moral vignette:
rather than cognitive development (e.g., Hoffman
A woman was on her deathbed. There was one drug 1993), may be an important factor in determining
that the doctors thought might save her. It was a
form of radium that a druggist in the same town had
moral reasoning. However, Kohlberg (1981) actu-
recently discovered. The drug was expensive to ally believes that the ability to take perspective, a
make, but the druggist was charging ten times cognitive capacity, is the fundamental determi-
what the drug cost him to produce. He paid $200 nant of moral reasoning.
for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose
of the drug. The sick woman’s husband, Heinz,
went to everyone he knew to borrow the money,
but he could only get together about $1,000 which Criticisms of Kohlberg’s Theory
is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his
wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or
let him pay later. But the druggist said: “No,
The theory of Kohlberg’s (1969) moral develop-
I discovered the drug and I’m going to make ment has been subjected to a number of criticisms
money from it.” So Heinz got desperate and broke from both theoretical and methodological per-
into the man’s laboratory to steal the drug for his spectives. The most important theoretical criti-
wife. Should Heinz have broken into the laboratory
to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?
cism is the claim of universality of the
hierarchical structure proposed by the theory.
According to Kohlberg, the decision of the However, Turiel et al. (1978) showed that the
participant regarding whether Heinz should or basic assumptions of the theory were supported
should not steal the drug has no theoretical signif- in a cross-sectional study. Likewise, Nisan and
icance. However, it is theoretically important as to Kohlberg (1982) and then Colby et al. (1983)
how the participant justifies her moral judgment. tested Kohlberg’s theory and showed that most
Someone who says that Heinz should not steal the of the predictions were supported in a longitudinal
Theory of Moral Development 3

design as well. But all of these studies have some which makes them feel even closer to each other.
certain limitations, such as being based on hypo- What do you think about that? Was it ok for them to
make love?
thetical dilemmas to measure moral judgment (see
below). Although this scenario is defined as a harmless
In addition, the argument that rational pro- taboo violation (i.e., there is no direct harm behav-
cesses are the main determinant of moral judg- ior in this scenario; but see Royzman et al. 2015
ment has been criticized (Haidt 2001). In fact, for a counterargument), the majority of respon-
there are two theoretical perspectives on the dents automatically describe the incest behavior in
study of cognitive processes of moral judgment. the scenario (in which the feeling of disgust is
The first is the Kantian theory, which Kohlberg activated) is morally wrong, and, in doing so,
adopted, which assumes that rational processes they use their intuitive and low-effort thinking
are more active than affective processes when styles (Haidt 2001). Only when they are asked
making a moral judgment. In this theoretical why, do they seek to justify their judgment by
approach, although emotional forces are – at using their analytic (high-effortful) thinking
least in part – involved, the main determinant of processes. Overall, Hume’s alternative
moral judgment is essentially rational. So (sentimentalist) theoretical framework, therefore,
Kohlberg thinks that the goal of a layperson in claims that we, as a lawyer, try to justify our moral
making a moral judgment is to reach the norma- decisions rather than to seek the truth, as do sci-
tively superior moral principle like a truth-seeking entists when making moral judgments. This is a
scientist who always tries to find the universal direct critique of Kohlberg’s rationalist view of
principles of nature. According to this approach, moral judgment.
someone with sufficient cognitive reasoning abil- Another theoretical criticism is that the moral
ity is more likely to score on higher levels of judgments scored as conventional level always
morality. The second theoretical approach to the correspond to traditional and conservative values,
psychological origins of moral judgment is the whereas those judgments scored as post-
Humean sentimentalist approach (Haidt 2001). conventional level are mostly related to liberal
According to this approach, we use our intuitive values of justice and universalism. Haidt (2012)
rather than our rational processes when making a argues that this hierarchical approach is a natural
moral judgment. Accordingly, when an event result of the age of Enlightenment and thus is
occurs, strong emotions such as disgust or anger biased toward Western thinking style. However,
emerge that lead us to intuitively conclude that the according to Haidt and Kesebir (2010), this hier-
situation is morally right or wrong. After the archical approach suggested by Kohlberg is sim-
moral judgment, we use our rational processes ply wrong, because almost every moral principle
only for justification of the previous, already that Kohlberg proposed has an evolutionary back-
made moral judgment. To test this sentimentalist ground and is present in every human being.
approach of Hume, the Julie and Mark scenario, However, the conservative moral values, scored
which is well known in the literature, is used. In as conventional level, are suppressed by political
this scenario, the participants read the following liberals (and the majority of Western people) by
scenario: spending cognitive effort, and as a result, they
Julie and Mark are brother and sister. They are perceive those foundations as morally irrelevant.
traveling together in France on summer vacation However, when we look at the rest of the world
from college. One night they are staying alone in a (i.e., non-WEIRD cultures: Western, educated,
cabin near the beach. They decide that it would be industrialized, rich, and democratic cultures;
interesting and fun if they tried making love. At the
very least, it would be a new experience for each of Henrich et al. 2010), those who value universal
them. Julie was already taking birth control pills, principles of justice and fairness (i.e., post-
but Mark uses a condom too, just to be safe. They conventional morality) constitute only a small
both enjoy making love, but they decide never to do minority (see also Shweder et al. 1997). Hence,
it again. They keep that night as a special secret,
4 Theory of Moral Development

the theory’s view of liberal values as the top and the children in the sense that the majority of the
hierarchically superior level of morality is sub- participants of Kohlberg range between 10 and
stantially criticized, and it is thought that 17 years of age, who have not been married and
Kohlberg’s theory of moral development is devel- have never had a similar dilemma in their lives
oped in a way that has a direct Western cultural before. A second limitation of the scenarios used
bias. Apart from that, this hierarchical structure is is the use of completely hypothetical scenarios.
criticized on its own. Rest (1979), for example, However, it is known that there can be discrepan-
claims that some participants were moving back- cies between hypothetical decision-making and
ward in stages. However, since Kohlberg con- real-life behavior, and the participants can some-
siders the development of cognitive development times report on the hypothetical scenarios that
as related to moral development, he claims that the they will do things that people will not do in real
more the cognitive development increases, the life (Bostyn et al. 2018).
greater the moral development.
Another criticism is related to alleged gender
bias embedded in Kohlberg’s theory of moral
Conclusion
development. In the studies of Kohlberg, men
generally score higher than women. However,
Kohlberg’s theory of moral development can be
Gilligan (1977) attributed this to the fact that the
considered as one of the first systematic – and
theory is constantly tested on male samples and
empirically testable – theoretical approaches try-
that the higher levels are formed by principles
ing to understand the developmental stages of
such as justice that men value more. In fact,
moral judgment, which is based on Piaget’s
women often focus more on harm principles than
moral theory. However, as outlined above, this
on justice, but justice is considered as a higher
approach is subject to substantial criticism from
moral principle in Kohlberg’s classification.
both the theoretical and the methodological per-
In addition to this male-female discussion in
spectives and gives way to alternative theoretical
terms of Kohlberg’s theory of moral development,
approaches such as the moral foundations theory
this can be seen as a methodological limitation as
(Haidt 2012) and morality as cooperation theory
well since Kohlberg often conducted research
(Curry et al. 2019). However, it is important to
with male participants. More importantly, how-
note that it maintains its claim to be the richest
ever, Kohlberg sought to observe age-related
theoretical approach to date to explain especially
changes using cross-sectional designs. In other
how morality develops, which is lacking in the
words, one-to-one interviews with children of dif-
contemporary alternative theoretical approaches.
ferent ages were conducted to understand what
In this respect, alternative theoretical approaches
kind of differences there were between different
that emphasize the developmental sequences of
ages instead of conducting longitudinal studies
moral judgment are needed in the field of moral
with the same participants. Although later Colby
development.
et al. (1983) conducted a 27-year longitudinal
study showing that Kohlberg’s theoretical
approach is supported, there is still some contro-
versy today regarding the validity of the methods Cross-References
used by Kohlberg.
In addition, some limitations of the method he ▶ Evolution of Morality
used were later reported. For example, the moral ▶ Evolved Moral Foundations
dilemmas that are used are very artificial, which in ▶ Morality
turn might lead to a serious problem for ecological
validity. Rosen (1980) reports that many of the
dilemmas used by Kohlberg are very artificial. For
example, the Heinz dilemma is very artificial for
Theory of Moral Development 5

References Kohlberg, L. (1971). Stages of moral development as a

basis for moral education. In C. M. Beck, B. S.
Beck, C. M., Crittenden, B. S., & Sullivan, E. V. (Eds.). Crittenden, & E. V. Sullivan (Eds.), Moral education:
(1971). Moral education: Interdisciplinary approaches. Interdisciplinary approaches. Toronto: University of
Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Toronto Press.
Bostyn, D. H., Sevenhant, S., & Roets, A. (2018). Of mice, Kohlberg, L. (1981). Essays in moral development: The
men, and trolleys: hypothetical judgment versus real- philosophy of moral development. New York: Harper
life behavior in trolley-style moral dilemmas. Psycho- Row.
logical Science, 29(7), 1084–1093. Kuhn, D., Langer, J., Kohlberg, L., & Haan, N. S. (1977).
Colby, A., Kohlberg, L., Gibbs, J., Lieberman, M., Fischer, The development of formal operations in logical and
K., & Saltzstein, H. D. (1983). A longitudinal study of moral judgment. Genetic Psychology Monographs,
moral judgment. Monographs of the Society for 1977, 97–188.
Research in Child Development, 48, 1–124. Nisan, M., & Kohlberg, L. (1982). Universality and varia-
Curry, O. S., Chesters, M. J., & Van Lissa, C. J. (2019). tion in moral judgment: A longitudinal and cross-
Mapping morality with a compass: Testing the theory sectional study in Turkey. Child Development, 53,
of ‘morality-as-cooperation’ with a new questionnaire. 865–876.
Journal of Research in Personality, 78, 106–124. Piaget, J. (1965). The moral judgment of the child.
Gilligan, C. (1977). In a different voice: Women’s concep- New York: Free Press.
tions of self and of morality. Harvard Educational Rest, J. R. (1979). Revised manual for the Defining Issues
Review, 47(4), 481–517. Test: An objective test of moral judgment development.
Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: Minneapolis: Minnesota Moral Research Projects.
A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psy- Rosen, B. (1980). Moral dilemmas and their treatment. In
chological Review, 108(4), 814. B. Munsey (Ed.), Moral development, moral educa-
Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are tion, and Kohlberg (pp. 232–263). Birmingham: Reli-
divided by politics and religion. New York: Paragon. gious Education Press.
Haidt, J., & Kesebir, S. (2010). Morality. Handbook of Royzman, E. B., Kim, K., & Leeman, R. F. (2015). The
social psychology (5th ed., pp. 797–832). Hoboken: curious tale of Julie and Mark: Unraveling the moral
Wiley. dumbfounding effect. Judgment and Decision making,
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). Most 10(4), 296–314.
people are not WEIRD. Nature, 466, 29. Shweder, R. A., Much, N. C., Mahapatra, M., & Park,
Hoffman, M. L. (1993). Empathy, social cognition, and L. (1997). The “big three” of morality (autonomy,
moral education. In A. Garrot (Ed.), Approaches to community, and divinity), and the “big three” explana-
moral development: New research and emerging tions of suffering. In A. Brandt & P. Rozin (Eds.),
themes (pp. 157–179). New York: Teachers College, Morality and health (pp. 119–169). New York:
Columbia University. Routledge.
Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The Turiel, E., Edwards, C. P., & Kohlberg, L. (1978). Moral
cognitive–developmental approach to socialization. In development in Turkish children, adolescents, and
D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory young adults. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
and research (pp. 347–480). Chicago: Rand McNally. 9(1), 75–86.

View publication stats